ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Human Trafficking

Fiona Bruce: If she will bring forward legislative proposals to introduce a modern slavery act.

Theresa May: The Government have a strong record on tackling the appalling crime of human trafficking. We have a clear strategy, robust legislation, good-quality support for victims, and strong enforcement against offenders, both in country and at the border. We are also working closely with our international partners to tackle the problem at source. Today is the 206th anniversary of the Act for the abolition of the slave trade, as well as the international day of remembrance for the victims of slavery, and it is entirely right that my hon. Friend reminds us of the issue today. We must continue our efforts to eradicate human trafficking, which can indeed be seen as a form of modern-day slavery.

Fiona Bruce: I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. She has stated that fighting human trafficking is a Government priority, but with the number of victims found increasing month on month, what consideration has been given to a new initiative such as an independent commissioner?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, which has also been raised by others. The Government are not convinced of the need to introduce an independent commissioner and we have, we believe, a very effective inter-departmental ministerial group, chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration. Crucially, that group includes not just representatives from Departments across Whitehall, but also from the devolved Administrations, and we believe that that is working well. It is necessary, however, to consider continually our effectiveness in this area, and we will keep the work of the inter-departmental ministerial group under review to ensure that it is carrying out the effective work that we want it to do.

Peter Bone: The Prime Minister has made ending modern-day slavery one of his top priorities. Does the Home Secretary welcome, as I do, the fact that he will open the hidden slavery in UK constituencies exhibition in the House of Commons on 22 April?

Theresa May: I am pleased at the excellent news that the Prime Minister will open the exhibition, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work in chairing the all-party group on human trafficking and on bringing forward that exhibition. I am sure that it will remind us not just of the hidden trafficking that exists in UK constituencies as a result of cross-border trafficking but also—unfortunately—of the fact that trafficking takes place within the United Kingdom.

Neighbourhood Policing

Simon Hart: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of neighbourhood policing.

Damian Green: We know that the public want a visible police presence, working with them to identify and tackle issues in their communities. Year on year the crime survey for England and Wales shows that that approach to policing is valued by the public, helping to build public confidence and bring crime down by 10%.

Simon Hart: For neighbourhood management to be really effective it requires the active involvement of other Departments such as those for health and housing. That works quite well in Dyfed-Powys, but is the Minister happy that it is working well everywhere else?

Damian Green: I agree with my hon. Friend that, for neighbourhood policing to be completely effective, it requires not just the police to work with others, but also with other Departments. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has written to chief constables and police and crime commissioners to emphasise that it is important, particularly in the field of mental health, for the police and the health service to work better together than they have in the past and to improve their response to that particularly vulnerable group of people. There is always more that we can do on that.

David Lammy: A few weeks ago the Mayor of London said that he would not close front-office counters in police stations unless he could replace them with a superior— or equivalent—service. Today he closed 63. Does the Home Secretary agree with the assessment of the Daily Mail, which a few weeks ago described the Mayor as “faintly ridiculous” and changing his mind “every five minutes”?

Damian Green: I understand that as part of the changes to the overall policing and crime power, which, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, is the responsibility of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, 2,600 officers will be redeployed from back offices into neighbourhood policing. There should therefore be more police on the streets of London than before, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming that.

Mike Freer: The Mayor of London’s redeployment of counter staff will lead to 74 additional bobbies on the beat in a borough such as Barnet. Does the Minister welcome that redeployment of officers on to the streets?

Damian Green: I do welcome that redeployment, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to it in his borough and other London boroughs. Getting effective neighbourhood and community policing is about officers rather than buildings.

Gareth Thomas: Does the Minister believe that someone who is set to leave London with fewer police constables and fewer police community support officers in 2015 compared with 2010 is a suitable candidate for future Prime Minister?

Damian Green: As this is Home Office questions, I will stick to the Home Office’s responsibilities, which include keeping our streets safe, which we are doing more effectively than ever before. Crime is down 10%, and it is down in the Metropolitan police area. I am sure the action the Mayor has taken today will make London’s streets even safer in future.

David Hanson: As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, Boris Johnson, aided by Home Office cuts, is to close 50% of London’s police stations, to lose 4,000 police constables and PCSOs, and to reduce police numbers in 17 of the 32 London boroughs. Will the Minister confirm that yesterday’s interview on “The Andrew Marr Show”, bad though it was, was the lesser of several evils the Mayor is inflicting on London?

Damian Green: I would have hoped that the shadow police Minister would have welcomed the fact that Metropolitan police crime figures are down by 3% in the past year, showing that the effective co-operation between the Home Office at national level and the Mayor’s office at London level is making London’s streets safer than ever before.

Foreign Nationals (Employment Status)

Gordon Henderson: What steps she is taking to record the employment status of foreign nationals who reside in the UK; and if she will make a statement.

Mark Harper: We are rolling out biometric residence permits to non-European economic area nationals in the UK granted leave for more than six months to make it easier for them to prove their entitlement to live and work. From next year, all non-EEA nationals will require a biometric residence permit, and we expect employers to check a migrant’s right to work prior to offering employment.

Gordon Henderson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s answer, which I find encouraging, but will he explain how the success of that initiative can be monitored unless records are kept of where and by whom foreign workers are employed?

Mark Harper: I have two things to say to my hon. Friend. First, the sponsorship system provides a good mechanism for employers to track and record who is working for them when they come to fill skills shortages. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will, with the roll-out of universal credit, collect as a routine matter the nationality of those who claim benefits.

Pete Wishart: On the issue of foreign nationals and all others, is the Government’s response simply determined by the rise and threat of the United Kingdom Independence party?

Mark Harper: No, not at all—the speech that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made earlier today was informed by work that has been going on for a number of months in the cross-ministerial committee that I chair. It is a well thought-through policy area as we further tighten the immigration system. The hon. Gentleman will know that, since the Government came to power, we have reduced net migration to the UK by a third and will continue to reduce it.

David Davies: Does the Minister agree that the vast majority of people in this country will support his work and the emphasis in the Prime Minister’s speech? Nevertheless, there is still a net increase in immigration of 160,000 every year. Will the Minister assure us that he will continue to do all he can to reduce that number further?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend is right. We committed to reducing net migration from the unsustainable hundreds of thousands that it was under Labour to tens of thousands, which is much more sustainable. That is supported by the vast majority of British people, whomever they vote for. I am glad my hon. Friend also supports that policy.

Chris Bryant: I wonder whether the Minister could help me to spot the difference. Currently regulations and Department for Work and Pensions guidance for jobcentres state that EU migrants cannot claim benefits after six months unless they are
	“genuinely seeking work, and have a reasonable chance of being engaged”.
	The Prime Minister today, in what is supposedly a new announcement, said that migrants can claim after six months only if they
	“can prove not just that you are genuinely seeking employment…but also that you have a genuine chance of getting a job.”
	Is that not exactly the same? There is no difference at all—it is not a new announcement. How many people exactly does the Minister believe will be affected by this supposed change?

Mark Harper: The Prime Minister set out a number of changes today. The one the hon. Gentleman mentions ensures that there is a statutory presumption in the system, which does not exist today, that, after six months, people have to demonstrate that they are taking all possible steps to seek work and that they have a reasonable prospect of getting it. At the moment, there is no presumption that they must do so. That is a weakness in the system, which is why we will strengthen it.

UK Visas (Chinese Nationals)

Robin Walker: What steps she is taking to ensure that the UK’s visa system helps tourists and business people from China to come to the UK without a loss of control over immigration. [R]

Mark Harper: Last year, the UK Border Agency processed almost 300,000 visa applications for Chinese nationals, with 97% of visas processed within 15 days. China is a priority market for the UK, and we want to support both tourists and business people coming to our country.

Robin Walker: Following on from the Worcestershire business delegation that I took to southern China late last year, as per my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in June we have a return delegation visiting Worcestershire from Nanning. While ensuring that we have proper immigration controls, may I encourage Ministers to do everything they can to facilitate business visits that can bring bilateral trade and investment?

Mark Harper: First, let me congratulate my hon. Friend on his personal contribution to increasing UK trade with China. He will want to know that there was an increase in visit visas issued to Chinese nationals of 6% last year. In December, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out a range of improvements to the visa process, particularly to support business customers, and they will be implemented this year.

UK Border Agency

Lorely Burt: What steps she is taking to improve the performance of the UK Border Agency.

Mark Harper: We have taken a number of steps to improve the performance of the UK Border Agency. As the Prime Minister said earlier today in his speech, we face a big task of turning around the tanker that is the UK Border Agency, and we will be setting out the next stages of those reforms shortly.

Lorely Burt: My constituent, Pooja Ramchandani, has been waiting for more than a year for a decision on her application for further leave to remain. The UK Border Agency target is for 75% of applications to be resolved within four weeks, and it has attributed the delay to additional work caused by the Olympics. Can the Minister confirm when the Olympics will cease to be another excuse given to people such as my constituent, a single mother whose child has permission for leave to remain?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend raises a specific case, and if she contacts my office afterwards, I will certainly look into it. Generally, on in-country performance, we have acknowledged that the UKBA was not delivering within its service standards in the past year. By the end of this month, however, it will be delivering the required performance standards in those cases, and I hope that that improvement will be sustained.

Keith Vaz: May I welcome the helpful comments the Minister made in response to the publication today of the Home Affairs Committee’s report, and his commitment to having a service that has the confidence of the British people? It is important that we discuss immigration in an open and transparent way, whether in the Prime Minister’s speech this lunch time, or in last Friday’s speech on bonds by the Deputy Prime Minister. Does he agree that we cannot implement the proposals unless the UK Border Agency is fit for purpose and we have cleared the backlog of a third of a million cases? Is it not time to take the agency back firmly under the control of Ministers?

Mark Harper: I thank the right hon. Gentleman both for his question and for his work in chairing the Home Affairs Committee. I see the Select Committee as a partner with the Government, challenging us and ensuring that we keep focusing and improving the agency’s performance. Although it is an agency, I had not noticed in the past year any difference in the level of accountability that either he expects from me, as a result of its performance, or from this House, as is evidenced by these questions. However, I will reflect further on what he has to say.

Julian Huppert: It is a pleasure to follow two excellent questions on the same issue. The Home Affairs Committee report on the UKBA published today has some astonishingly poor figures. In quarter 3 of 2012, 18% of tier 1 visas were processed within four weeks—astonishingly bad. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to try and fix that. Does he agree that we cannot have a coherent, fair and credible immigration system when the agency is performing so atrociously?

Mark Harper: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work on the Home Affairs Committee. I agree: the figures for quarter 3 last year were not good, and I acknowledged that in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt). I am pleased to be able to say that by the end of this month, the UKBA will be making decisions for tier 1 visas and others within the service standards that it sets out to its customers, and which they have a right to expect.

David Winnick: Successive Ministers have come to the House of Commons and tried to defend the work of the UK Border Agency. Is the Minister aware that time and time again the agency admits, and has to admit, to a backlog of thousands of cases that have not been dealt with and that go back years—sometimes five, 10 or more? That is a shambles, and the sooner that is recognised by the Government, the better it will be.

Mark Harper: I would say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, while the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice was doing this job, and since I have been doing it, we have not gone out of our way to defend the agency. We have acknowledged that it is a troubled organisation, but it has many hard-working and dedicated staff and we should not have broad-brush criticism that neglects the work they do. On his specific question about old cases, particularly legacy cases, I simply say that the Government inherited about 500,000 cases
	from Labour, which we have largely got under control. We are working through a relatively small number of cases and will get that done in the next few months.

Cybercrime

Simon Wright: What steps she is taking to tackle cybercrime.

James Brokenshire: The Government’s approach to tackling online crime is set out in the national cyber-security strategy, which is underpinned by a £650 million programme of new investment over four years. This includes strengthening law enforcement capabilities by establishing the national cybercrime unit, which will lead the national and international response to tackling this issue.

Simon Wright: Many security experts report that small and medium-sized businesses are increasingly targeted by cybercriminals, but are not always well equipped to protect themselves. What progress are the Government making to ensure that small businesses get the support they need to pursue new business opportunities online with confidence?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend raises an important point about awareness and ensuring that we equip the public and business with the best advice and guidance on how to protect themselves from the threat from online criminals, which we do through Get Safe Online. We are focused equally on small businesses, however, which is the point he makes directly, and this spring the Government are looking to update the advice and guidance to business, focusing on those small businesses.

Kevin Brennan: Cybercrime is not just about fraud; it is also about online bullying, which can devastate people’s lives and constitute a criminal offence. How confident is the Minister that local police forces have the expertise and the resources to deal with complaints about such crime?

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the expertise within police forces. We are establishing the national cybercrime unit, not simply to deal with the most sophisticated, high-end internet crimes, but to be a centre of expertise and to make that expertise available to police forces up and down the country. That will put in place a more end-to-end approach in dealing with these forms of criminality, which cause so much harm.

Draft Data Communications Bill

John Robertson: What assessment she has made of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Data Bill.

Theresa May: The Government have committed to accepting the substance of all the Joint Committee’s recommendations. We are currently redrafting the Bill and are engaging with interested parties on our proposals. The Bill is vital to help catch criminals, including
	paedophiles, terrorists and members of organised crime, and we welcome the Joint Committee’s and the Intelligence and Security Committee’s conclusion that we need new law.

John Robertson: The Home Secretary obviously agrees with me that the Bill has been widely drawn and does not contain enough safeguards. What safeguards will she put into the Bill to improve it?

Theresa May: I can only repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I just said, which is that we will accept the substance of all the Joint Committee’s recommendations. It considered issues such as how widely the Bill was drawn and that of future-proofing, and we have accepted its recommendations. When it comes before Parliament, the Bill will be much more tightly drawn, in terms of some of the definitions and the issue of future-proofing. We are redrafting the Bill, and if he can be patient for a little while, I think when he reads it he will see that we have indeed responded to the Joint Committee’s recommendations.

Michael Ellis: Does the Home Secretary agree that the Joint Committee, on which I sat, confirmed the desperate need for new laws in this area—for one, to catch paedophiles and other types of criminals and terrorists—and so agreed with the Government’s policy of introducing such new laws?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend and all other Members of this House and another place for their work on the Joint Committee ably chaired by my noble Friend Lord Blencathra. Obviously, we have looked at the details of the Joint Committee’s proposals, but it was striking that, on a cross-party basis, every member agreed that we needed new legislation in this area.

Illegal Traveller Sites

Henry Smith: What support her Department is providing to police and crime commissioners and local authorities to tackle illegal Traveller sites.

Damian Green: Both police and local authorities have powers to tackle unauthorised encampments. I understand that the police and crime commissioner in my hon. Friend’s constituency, Katy Bourne, is working with the community to understand and respond to its concerns about unauthorised Traveller encampments. This is an example of the value that police and crime commissioners can bring to local policing, getting to the heart of the issues affecting communities on a day-to-day basis.

Henry Smith: I join the Minister in paying tribute to the Sussex police and crime commissioner, Katy Bourne, for getting to grips with the illegal Traveller problem in just four short months. Does my right hon. Friend think that the Human Rights Act is a problem for law-abiding residents in dealing with this issue?

Damian Green: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Katy Bourne’s work. I am not an unqualified admirer of the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998, but the clue to what he said was when he talked about illegal Traveller incursions. There is no legal right to
	trespass: landowners, local authorities and the police have a range of powers available to remove trespassers and regain possession of land, and I would encourage them all to use them as strongly as possible.

Net Migration

Nigel Mills: What progress her Department is making in reducing net migration to the UK.

Alun Cairns: What steps her Department is taking better to manage immigration.

John Baron: What progress her Department is making in reducing net migration to the UK.

Theresa May: As has already been referred to this afternoon, the latest statistics show another significant fall in net migration—down almost a third since June 2010. This shows that we are bringing immigration back under control. Our tough policies continue to have an effect, and this marks a further step towards bringing net migration down from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament.

Nigel Mills: I welcome the fall in net migration. Can the Home Secretary confirm to the House that it was caused by fewer people coming to the UK and not more people leaving, as some have suggested?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figure for net migration is reached by looking at the numbers leaving and the numbers coming in. The Office for National Statistics has been absolutely clear about the statistically significant fall in immigration and net migration, and it is the fall in immigration that has led to the fall in net migration.

Alun Cairns: The new “Life in the UK” test comes into force this week. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it should focus on encouraging immigrants to play a full part in British life, rather than teaching them how best to claim benefits?

Theresa May: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and that is exactly what the new “Life in the UK” test does. We have revamped the requirements for people taking the test. It is no longer about water meters and how to claim benefits, but enables people to participate fully in our society. It has sections on British history. The test enables people to understand what being resident in the United Kingdom is about and how to participate in our society, and I think that is absolutely right.

John Baron: The nation has always been tolerant of persecuted minorities—quite rightly—and, indeed, seen the benefits of immigration, but controls under the last Government collapsed into an absolute shambles. What more can the Government do to control immigration for the benefit of public services and how confident are they that the Prime Minister’s proposals, announced today, will be implemented in time for the EU transitional controls, ending at the end of the year?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out that, despite the significant falls we have seen in net migration, it is necessary for us to continue to look at the routes for migration into this country and the so-called pull factors and to ensure that we are enforcing our rules. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s speech today is important because it sets out the importance of embedding immigration across Government as an issue that is not just for the Home Office, but for other Departments. That includes the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health, and, indeed, local government. We are clear that we will do all we can to deliver those parts of my right hon. Friend’s speech that can be delivered before the end of this year. For anything that requires legislation that goes beyond that, we will maintain our commitment to it, despite the transitional controls coming off at the end of this year.

Diana Johnson: Can the Home Secretary confirm that net migration of British citizens has fallen by 47,000 under this Government because fewer British citizens are returning home and more are leaving? Does she regard it as a successful immigration policy if two thirds of the reduction in net migration under this Government is down to fewer British citizens in this country?

Theresa May: I have to tell the hon. Lady that her question is based on a false premise. It is not the case that two thirds of the fall in net migration is due to the number of British people leaving. The Office for National Statistics is absolutely clear that the significant fall in net migration is due to a fall in immigration.

Greg Mulholland: We need a firm, fair and sensible immigration policy, but that is confused by the inclusion of international students in the net migration figures. Those students contribute about £5 billion to the economy. America does not do that, Australia does not do it and Canada does not do it. Why do we continue to do it?

Theresa May: We continue to keep students who are staying for more than a year in the calculation of those who are immigrants into the UK because it is an international definition. It is the definition used around the world. It is very simple: those who are staying here for more than a year have an impact on public services and on the UK more generally. I am pleased to say to my hon. Friend that our policy of differentiation means that we have been cutting out abuse in the student visa system, while at the same time the number of overseas students applying to our universities has gone up. We are welcoming the brightest and the best.

Refusals of Leave to Remain

Simon Hughes: How many requests for a reconsideration of a decision to refuse leave to remain are outstanding; and what the oldest such cases currently being reconsidered are.

Mark Harper: The UK Border Agency has approximately 14,000 requests for reconsiderations outstanding. The oldest request
	dates back to 3 March 2010. It is worth reminding the House that these are all people who have had a decision on their application and have either exhausted their appeal rights or chosen not to appeal, so they have no right to be in the United Kingdom and they should leave.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the Minister’s answer. Now that the Home Office has agreed to reconsider all the cases in this category as soon as possible, will the Minister and his colleagues look at whether there could be a system for prioritising those cases that are clearly in urgent need rather than simply working through a date system, which I have to say has been pretty random in the past?

Mark Harper: The point I made at the beginning still stands. These are all people who have had a decision and have been refused the right to remain in the UK after going through the full appeal process. For those who submitted a reconsideration request prior to our policy change last November, we will work through all their cases in order. If the right hon. Gentleman has a clear case of where there is a particularly compassionate reason for looking at it earlier, I would welcome him getting in touch with me; otherwise, we will work through the cases in date order.

Julian Brazier: Given those answers, will my hon. Friend confirm that the greatest single reason for the backlog in the UK Border Agency is the tendency of courts to go on allowing more and more appeals, thereby lengthening the process?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend is right that when the UKBA makes decisions, people in settlement cases frequently have a right of appeal. Some of those processes can often be very lengthy, so we will keep on considering whether there are ways of making the system smoother and more streamlined.

CCTV

Barbara Keeley: What steps she is taking to increase the use of CCTV in communities where it is wanted.

James Brokenshire: The Government support the effective use of CCTV to cut crime and protect the public. It is for local agencies to determine how best to deploy and use CCTV systems to meet local needs. Our surveillance camera code of practice will help them to do so.

Barbara Keeley: The context in Greater Manchester is that we have lost 825 police officers from the front line since 2010. In fact, Salford is now losing 27 police officers and nine police and community support officers to other parts of Greater Manchester. Given that context of losing such a lot of the visible police presence that reassures the public, why does this Minister and other Ministers also want to make it harder, which it will be, for the police and local authorities to get CCTV?

James Brokenshire: One point on which the hon. Lady might like to reflect is the fact that crime in Greater Manchester is down by 11%. We are not seeking
	to make it harder to get CCTV. The hon. Lady may shake her head, but we are not. We are supporting local communities in their approach. The fact is that, yes, CCTV can help to make a difference, but it also needs to command the support of the public. That is precisely what the code of practice seeks to assure.

Gloria De Piero: Since the last election, one in five councils has cut the number of CCTV cameras on the streets. Why is that?

James Brokenshire: The hon. Lady has clearly not reflected on the answer that I have just given. Ultimately, it is for local communities to decide what works best in their area. She quotes a figure, but no evidence of widespread reductions in town centre CCTV systems has been brought to our attention. Our code of practice is simply about supporting local communities. We believe in the use of CCTV. The problem under the last Government was that they spent hundreds of millions of pounds without working out whether the CCTV systems actually made any difference to cutting crime. That is our focus; that is what we will support local authorities to do.

Student Visas

Lilian Greenwood: What assessment she has made of the number of student visitor visas issued in the last year for which figures are available.

Mark Harper: In 2012, 68,372 student visitor visas were issued, 11% more than in 2011. Such visitors come to take short courses or to attend university summer schools. Most can stay for up to six months, but in order to support English language schools, we now allow those taking specialist English courses to stay for up to 11 months on extended student visit visas.

Lilian Greenwood: The UK Border Agency’s border inspector has warned that student visitor visas are open to abuse, so why has the number of people entering the UK with them risen by 76% under this Tory-led Government?

Mark Harper: The hon. Lady ought to check what the chief inspector actually said. All he said was that the UKBA should monitor the route to ensure that it was not being exploited, and that is exactly what it is doing. If the hon. Lady looks at the nationalities in relation to which we have reduced the number of tier 4 visas, she will see that there is no sign of any increase in student visitor visas. In fact, nearly 50% of the people using the student visitor route are non-visa nationals, and a large proportion of those coming here with six-month student visitor visas are from the United States of America. There is no risk of abuse, but we remain alert to it and will ensure that we catch it out.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the number of university visas has increased by 3% while at the same time the number of student visas is actually falling
	shows that it is possible to strip abuse from the system while also ensuring that the UK is open to the brightest and the best?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a big drop in the number of students coming here, but that is because we have stripped abuse from the system. Five hundred fewer colleges are able to bring in foreign nationals, but, as my hon. Friend says, there has been an increase in the number entering our excellent universities sector.

William Bain: The Government have been caught napping by allowing the number of student visitor visas to rise by 30,000 since June 2010. Moreover, does the Minister accept that, in the words of Universities Scotland, he is damaging the brand of higher education by ensuring that genuine overseas students are included in the Government’s net migration target?

Mark Harper: That is a very good example of a Member reading out a question without having listened to my previous answer. The hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen at all to what I said in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen). The number of students entering our excellent universities sector has risen, both in the United Kingdom and in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman should also know that the student visitor visa is credibility-based. Entry clearance officers have full powers to say no to students if they believe that they are not genuine student visitors to the United Kingdom.

Domestic Violence

Andy Slaughter: What progress her Department has made on improving the detection and reporting of incidents of domestic violence.

Damian Green: The Government have introduced new initiatives to improve the reporting of domestic violence. They include the domestic violence disclosure scheme pilot, and domestic violence protection orders to provide better protection for victims. Detections are, of course, a matter for the police, and we will continue to work with them to improve the reporting and resolution of these violent and abhorrent crimes.

Andy Slaughter: Preventing domestic homicides, which are still running at two a week, should be a priority for the Government, but leading victims’ organisations such as Standing Together Against Domestic Violence, in my constituency, are frustrated by the fact that the lessons of domestic homicide reviews are not being fed back to practitioners. Why is this essential work being delayed?

Damian Green: It is not being delayed. As I have said, these are indeed abhorrent crimes and continuing improvement is needed, but there has already been a great deal of improvement over the past couple of years. The Government have introduced two new specific criminal offences of stalking, have relaunched the teenage rape prevention and relationship abuse campaigns, and have extended the definition of domestic violence to
	include 16 and 17-year-olds and coercive control. All that shows the great seriousness with which we approach the issue.

Deportation of Foreign Criminals

Graeme Morrice: What assessment she has made of trends in the number of foreign criminals who have been deported since June 2010.

Mark Harper: The UK Border Agency removed over 4,500 foreign national offenders in 2012, and have removed over 11,000 foreign national criminals since June 2010. There has been an increase in the number of appeals being lodged against deportation, which is why we implemented changes in the immigration rules last July to prevent criminals facing deportation from abusing the Human Rights Act.

Graeme Morrice: The fact is that this Government are deporting 900 fewer foreign criminals a year than the previous Labour Government did. Why is this Government’s performance so poor?

Mark Harper: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my previous answer, he would know that there has been a significant increase in the number of appeals lodged by criminals; in 2012, the figure increased by 1,000. That is exactly why we have strengthened the ability to remove criminals by implementing changes in the immigration rules, and to ensure that that is enforced by tribunals. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that we will take powers in primary legislation to do so.

Philip Hollobone: Jamaicans and Nigerians make up a disproportionately large number of the foreign nationals in our jails. What assistance is my hon. Friend providing to the Secretary of State for Justice in negotiating compulsory prisoner transfer agreements with these two countries, and what progress is being made?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Nigerian Parliament has passed the legislation required to implement compulsory prisoner transfer, which means that in due course we will be able compulsorily to move prisoners to Nigeria, which I am sure he will welcome.

Mark Reckless: Might the trend in this area not be rather better if the Home Secretary had followed the advice of our hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), rather than that of others who have been consistently wrong?

Mark Harper: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The amendment proposed by our hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton would in our judgment have made it more difficult to deport foreign national offenders, rather than easier. That is why the Government will look at introducing amendments to primary legislation, when we have a suitable legislative vehicle, to implement the commitments that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made to the House.

Late Night Levy (Licensed Premises)

Lyn Brown: How many local authorities have imposed a late levy on licensed premises to date; and how much income has been raised for policing as a result.

James Brokenshire: The late-night levy was introduced in October last year. Since then a number of councils have been actively considering how a levy could benefit their area. The first formal public consultation to introduce a levy began in Newcastle last month.

Lyn Brown: I take that answer as being “absolutely none”. The Home Office told us that 94 of the 100 licensing authorities would impose the late-night levy, which would raise £10 million for police forces in its first year. Six months in, not a single pound has been raised. Is this not another illustration of the Government’s collapsing alcohol policy, and where is the Minister going to get the money from to police our night-time economy?

James Brokenshire: I find it quite interesting that the hon. Lady makes her point in the way she does, given that the last Labour Government promised that we would have a café culture, but instead we had 1 million violent crimes linked to alcohol. A number of councils are taking forward this policy, and we see this as a local issue: it should be for councils, with their police and crime commissioners, to decide if it works for them. That is precisely what we are doing, and I am surprised that the hon. Lady does not support local action to deal with the problems her constituents would like to see addressed.

Rosie Cooper: We hear about tough new licensing laws, yet no action is taken on tackling the problem of cheap booze, often consumed at home before going out. The Government’s alcohol strategy is obviously in disarray. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government have finally abandoned their plan to implement a minimum price for alcohol?

James Brokenshire: The Government have already taken a number of important steps to reform the licensing laws and strengthen the powers available to local communities to deal with the problem of alcohol-related crime. The Government have consulted on the important issues of pricing and low-cost alcohol. We are reflecting on the representations that have been received and we will respond to the House in due course.

Serious Sexual Assaults

George Howarth: What assessment she has made of the capabilities of the police to record, investigate and detect rapes and serious sexual assaults.

Damian Green: Rape and sexual violence are devastating crimes that ruin lives. We expect every report to be taken seriously, every victim to be treated with dignity, and every investigation to be conducted thoroughly and
	professionally. Our updated violence against women and girls action plan sets out our commitment to take a coherent approach to tackling sexual violence.

George Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that people are sometimes being let off with a caution for lower-level sexual offences and that that is unacceptable? If he does agree, what is he going to do about it?

Damian Green: The Government will shortly be announcing a review of the caution regime. I am as determined as the right hon. Gentleman is to ensure that cautions, which provide a useful part of the criminal justice system, are used only in appropriate circumstances. I should say that the number of cautions used in cases of serious sexual abuse is low, with such cautions tending to be used for young offenders, for reasons that are clear in each individual case. However, I rather share his concerns about the use of cautions in this field.

Net Migration

Jason McCartney: What assessment her Department has made of public support for reducing net migration.

Theresa May: As my hon. Friend will have heard, I have made a number of references, in answer to earlier questions, to what we have done on net migration. I can confirm that the British public see immigration as the third most important issue facing Britain today—that was the response to an Ipsos MORI poll in February.

Jason McCartney: I commend Conservative Ministers for the progress they have made in cutting net migration by a third, as they head towards their target of tens of thousands. May I give them further encouragement by telling them that a recent YouGov poll showed 63% support for that target among Labour voters, even though the Labour party opposes the target?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I was aware that public opinion polling showed that eight in 10 British adults support the Prime Minister’s pledge to reduce net migration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. I am encouraged by the fact that such a high percentage of Labour voters also support the target—it is just a pity that that message has not got through to Labour Front Benchers.

Topical Questions

Lorely Burt: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Theresa May: Next month, Sir Jonathan Evans will move on from his role as director general of the Security Service, and I wish to pay tribute to Sir Jonathan for the 33 years he has dedicated to the service. During that time his contributions have varied from investigating counter-espionage, developing and implementing key policies on security, and, most recently, countering the threat of international terrorism. He has experienced the service evolving over the years and as director
	general has led the service through particularly challenging times of change and unrest, including the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings. His tireless work helped to ensure the delivery of a safe and successful Olympic and Paralympic games last year. I commend and thank him for his invaluable contribution to public safety and national security.

Lorely Burt: Recent Government legislation seeks to abolish appeals for family visitors, but one third of appeals currently succeed. Would it not be better to get a proper decision in the first place than to go through the whole process all over again?

Theresa May: We looked at this issue closely and what is clear is that in a significant number of cases the initial decision was not wrong on the basis of the information available at the time it was taken; in so many cases further information is put into the system between the initial decision and the appeal, and the appeal is then decided on a different basis. It is slightly cheaper, and it will take less time, for individuals to make a further application rather than going through the appeals process. As this is the only part of the visit visa system that has this appeal, we think it is right that we change the rules for this particular category.

Yvette Cooper: May I, too, give our thanks for the work that Jonathan Evans has done over many years for the security of this country? The Prime Minister has spoken today about immigration, and it is right to have conditions on benefits and public services, but will the Home Secretary confirm that she has no estimate of how many people, if any, will see any change in their jobseeker’s entitlement as a result? Will she also tell us why the number of employers fined for employing illegal workers has dropped by 42% since the election?

Theresa May: The Prime Minister has made a wide-ranging speech today, in which he has referred to a number of areas where the Government will be taking action to ensure that the United Kingdom is not seen as a soft touch and that people who come here are coming to contribute to our society and to our economy—that will be across the board in relation to benefits and to matters such as access to the health service.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary did not answer my questions about whether the policies will have any impact, how many people will be affected by the new policies or why enforcement has become consistently worse since the election. Unannounced checks have fallen by more than 30%, the number of foreign criminals deported has fallen by 16% and there has been a 50% drop in the number of those refused entry to Britain since the election as well as a 50% increase in the number of long waits for asylum decisions. There is also the point I raised with her initially: the number of employers employing illegal workers being fined has dropped by some 40% since the election. What will the Home Secretary do to improve enforcement and the effectiveness of the system so that people can have confidence that it is working? It has got worse since the election, not better, so what is she doing to improve enforcement?

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady lists a range of issues, so let me pick one that has already been answered by my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration—that is, the one about foreign national offenders. My hon. Friend correctly said that the number of appeals from foreign national offenders has increased. In 2012, there were about 1,000 more such appeals, which extends the time it takes to deport those individuals. I will not take any lectures on how to deal with immigration from the party that left our immigration system in such chaos. We have spent three years bringing control into the system and we will continue to do that. On the back of the Prime Minister’s speech today, we will enhance enforcement and ensure that people who come to this country do so to contribute to our society and our economy; Labour did not do that over 13 years.

Steven Baker: Intelligent use of new technology is bound to be vital in the fight against crime, whether through online crime maps or better IT procurement, but will the Government deploy it with due regard to liberty and privacy?

Damian Green: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance, and he is right. Online crime maps are useful in giving citizens knowledge about crime activity in their area; they are still hugely successful and two years after the launch of police.uk in January 2011, the site receives more than 200,000 hits a day. However, with street-level crime maps we have taken great care to ensure that the identities of individuals are protected because the balance between civil liberties and effective crime fighting is very important to us.

Lilian Greenwood: Following the Secretary of State’s Government’s 20% cuts, Nottinghamshire has lost more police officers than any county in the east midlands and police morale is badly hit. After cutting police numbers and bungling the police and crime commissioner elections, will she apologise to areas such as Clifton in my constituency, where crime and antisocial behaviour are a real problem?

Theresa May: We have published a draft Bill on antisocial behaviour, the aim of which is to make it easier to deal at a local level with the issues of antisocial behaviour that sadly blight too many communities across the country. The hon. Lady talks about reductions in officer numbers, but she might also reflect on the fact that in the past year, recorded crime in Nottinghamshire has gone down by 13%.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Further to the earlier questions on student visas, and given that Lancaster is home to one of our top universities, is any extra support available when a university needs speedier visas so that overseas academics can come to conferences and seminars that are vital to the university’s international reputation?

Mark Harper: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and I am sure that he will have been encouraged by what I said earlier about student visas. He might be interested to know
	that last April we introduced the visitor route for permitted paid engagements, which is specifically helpful in such cases as it covers experts visiting to give a paid lecture, examine students and participate in or chair selection panels. They can do that for up to one month and receive a fee payment; I hope that is helpful to all those at his excellent local university.

Paul Goggins: I echo the Home Secretary’s remarks about Sir Jonathan Evans. On a different subject, the UN convention on the rights of the child clearly states that every individual under the age of 18 should be regarded as a child, yet we still treat 17-year-olds who are arrested as adults. Will the Home Secretary agree to undertake a review of that situation, which sometimes has disastrous consequences, to ensure that any 17-year-old who is taken into police custody is treated as a child?

Damian Green: As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am aware of some individual cases where there have been tragic events after the arrests of 17-year-olds. I assure him that we are keeping this under review.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Home Secretary look favourably on a holistic approach to rural crime, so that illegal horse grazing and illegal fly tipping can be treated as what they truly are—rural crimes?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an important point. In various parts of the country, there is real concern about the attention given to a number of issues that corporately come together under rural crime. I will certainly look at the specific issues she raised, but a number of police and crime commissioners were clear last year that they wanted to ensure that greater emphasis was put on rural crime, which blights many of our rural communities.

Bill Esterson: In just the past few months, there have been seven gang-related shootings in Maghull in my constituency—a town with no previous experience of gun crime. The Home Secretary will understand the very real fears of my constituents that it is only a matter of time before an innocent bystander is hurt or killed. Will she make sure that Merseyside police have all the resources they need to protect residents and to stamp out this worrying trend in gun crime?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. Sadly, we have seen problems related to gun crime in a number of parts of the country and, as he says, there has been evidence of completely innocent individuals getting caught in those incidents. We have been looking particularly at offences in relation to guns, and indeed we are introducing a new offence relating to the provision of guns—the intent to supply guns—so that we can catch some of the middlemen who are making guns available. Often they are rented out by middlemen for a variety of crimes. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me, I will respond.

Andrew Jones: The breach rate for antisocial behaviour orders is running at 57.3%. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to change the law on antisocial behaviour
	so that we punish the perpetrators and empower local communities, and through that, cut antisocial behaviour and crime?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the effectiveness of measures to deal with the antisocial behaviour that blights so many of our communities. A lot of measures are slow, bureaucratic and quite expensive; therefore the Government have published a draft Bill to reform antisocial behaviour measures, to support communities. We thank the Select Committee on Home Affairs for the pre-legislative scrutiny applied to the draft Bill and we shall respond to the Committee’s recommendations in due course.

David Winnick: Has the Home Secretary found it at all embarrassing to be the centre of so much speculation about going for the top job in politics?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member of the House, so he knows that that is not a matter relevant to the remit of the Home Office.

Paul Maynard: I will make an effort to ask a better question than the last one. Ministers will be aware that alcohol-fuelled crime and antisocial behaviour have damaging consequences in seaside resorts such as Blackpool. Given that we are not proceeding with minimum unit pricing for alcohol, what additional measures, not in the Government alcohol strategy, will they now consider to tackle this social scourge?

James Brokenshire: The Government have already strengthened powers for local authorities in Blackpool and elsewhere; for example, to introduce early-morning restriction orders to control the hours when licensed outlets are able to trade. Indeed, we have given councils extra flexibility to act. As I have already indicated, the Government are reflecting on the representations made on the pricing of alcohol and we will come back to the House with our confirmed position in due course.

Chi Onwurah: Earlier, the Minister spoke of the Government’s commitment to tackling cybercrime, yet that commitment does not seem to include either defining or measuring what cybercrime is, so could the Minister say whether individuals and small businesses are encouraged to report all cybercrime to the police?

James Brokenshire: I know that the hon. Lady has examined the issue over a number of years and I recognise her direct interest. I underline that the Government have acted on national cyber-security by virtue of additional funding, the creation of the national cybercrime unit and the establishment of Action Fraud as the direct means for reporting online cybercrime. I absolutely encourage the public and small businesses to ensure that those crimes are properly reported so that we can provide the most effective advice to prevent crime and bring those responsible to justice.

Philip Davies: The Home Secretary will be aware of the legal case between Leeds United and West Yorkshire police, which was won by Leeds United, leaving West Yorkshire police to pay £1 million back to the football club, leaving us in a situation in which my constituents will be robbed of police officers to police yobs at football matches at weekends. May I urge the Home Secretary to intervene in this case to reverse that intolerable position?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend will be aware that it is not for Ministers to tell judges and courts what decisions to come to. Clearly, it is an operational matter for individual police forces to determine how to police football matches. I part company with him in his description of football fans as yobs, as football is a much safer game to attend for spectators than it was 20 or 30 years ago, largely as a result of better policing and widespread revulsion by respectable football fans at the yobs who used to deface the game.

Fiona Bruce: My young constituent, James Harrold, aged 19, from Middlewich, lost both his legs after being hit by a police car travelling at speed. In 2011-12, police vehicles were the cause of 18 deaths and many serious injuries such as those sustained by James. What are the Government doing to ensure that the number of such tragic incidents is reduced?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and certainly the case to which she referred is very distressing. While speed limits do not apply to vehicles used for emergency service purposes if observance of the limit is likely to hinder that purpose, I can assure her that emergency services drivers remain subject at all times to the law on careless and dangerous driving, of which exceeding the speed limit may be a component. The Department for Transport has recently consulted on the issue of extending the exemption to other emergency services, but it has also looked at amending road safety legislation so that emergency drivers will be required to complete high speed driving training before they
	are allowed to exceed the limit, and it proposes to base that training on the code drawn up by the emergency services.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) will have to wait a moment, because the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has been jumping up and down more persistently.

David Burrowes: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My question follows on from the excellent question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw). I hosted a meeting of health academics from Turkey, who experienced difficulties in visiting the UK because of delays in securing a visa for the visit. Given the economic opportunities flowing from Turkey, will he join my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and me in seeking an expedited service for this economic priority nation?

Mark Harper: Our overseas visa and entry clearance services have delivered a very good performance, with over 90% of visas issued within 15 days. If my hon. Friend wishes to raise a specific example—and it sounds as if he does—in which there was a longer delay, I would be grateful if he gave me the details and I can investigate matters with the UK Border Agency.

Ian Lucas: Does the Home Secretary agree that police and stewards can effectively control football matches, as they did yesterday at Wembley stadium, when they were able to witness Wrexham football club’s glorious victory over Grimsby Town in the FA trophy final?

Damian Green: I feel I should take the opportunity to congratulate Wrexham on its glorious victory yesterday, and agree with the hon. Gentleman. In fact, the way to control football violence comes largely from the fans themselves. The vast majority of football fans are respectable and want to enjoy the game peacefully, and if they do so, the job of the police is made much easier.

Immigrants (NHS Treatment)

Frank Field: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health what moves the Government intend to take to prevent the national health service becoming an international health service.

Jeremy Hunt: The current system of policing and enforcing the entitlement of foreign nationals to free NHS care is chaotic and often out of control. At a time when we are having to face the challenges of an ageing society, it places a significant and unjustified burden on our GP surgeries and hospitals and may well impact on the standard of care received by British citizens.
	As the Prime Minister said earlier today, the Government are determined to ensure that anyone not entitled to receive free NHS services should be properly identified and charged for the use of those services. Currently, we identify less than half of those who should be paying and collect payment from less than half those we identify.
	We also have some of the most generous rules in the world on access to free health care. Our rules allow free access to primary care for any visitor to the UK, including tourists, and free access to all NHS care for foreign students and temporary visitors. But ours is a national, not an international, health service, so last year, under my predecessor, we began a wholesale review of the rules and procedures on charging visitors for NHS care, with a view to making the regime simpler, fairer and easier to implement. In particular, we focused on who should be charged and how the rules can be applied and enforced more effectively. We have examined the qualifying residency criteria for free treatment; the full range of other current criteria that exempt particular services or visitors from charges for their treatment; whether visitors should be charged for GP services and other NHS services outside hospitals; establishing a more effective and efficient process across the NHS to screen for eligibility and to make and recover charges; and whether to introduce a requirement for health insurance tied to visas.
	The initial phase of the review has concluded and we will shortly start a consultation on a range of options, including plans to extend charging to some visitors and temporary residents who were previously exempt so that the default qualification for free NHS care would be permanent, not temporary, residence; ending free access to primary care for all visitors and tourists; introducing a prepayment or insurance requirement for temporary visitors to pay for NHS health care; and improving how the NHS can identify, charge and recover charges where they should apply. We will retain exemptions for emergency treatment and public health issues.
	We will work closely with medical professionals, NHS staff and partner NHS organisations during the consultation and then seek to introduce agreed changes as quickly as possible. We will need to take a staged approach, because some changes are likely to require primary legislation before they can be introduced, which will take longer to put in place. However, some changes can be made immediately, and we should proceed with those as quickly as possible.

Frank Field: I thank the Health Secretary for his reply. If he wants us to take him seriously, will he today give a commitment in respect of the directive his Department issued just as the House was rising for the summer recess, compelling doctors, if they have vacancies, to admit all those who have been in the country for 24 hours or more, including illegal immigrants? Will he ensure that someone in the NHS—not doctors—works out whether or not a person is entitled to claim, and will he implement such proposals forthwith?

Jeremy Hunt: The directive to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was issued by an independent NHS body, not my Department. The sorry truth is that it is consistent with the current rules on access to primary health care, which is what we believe is wrong. I think that one of the big problems in the current system is that we have free access to primary care for anyone visiting the UK, however short their visit is. Through that access to primary care, they get an NHS number, which should not entitle them to free care but is often treated by hospitals as such. That is what we have to put right. He is absolutely right that we need a system that properly identifies whether people should have care that is free at the point of access without impinging on the ease of access for British citizens, which is one of the things they treasure most about the NHS.

Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is through access to primary care that the initial control must take place, but that all hospitals should have an overseas visitors manager who should be designated and required to collect overseas visitors’ moneys on a more regular basis and using a more joined-up and coherent way of working with the other agencies involved?

Jeremy Hunt: What my right hon. Friend says bears very careful consideration. He is absolutely right that primary care is a critical access point, and we need to look at that. We also need to look at the burdens we place on GPs. I think that ultimately the easy way we will do that is through proper digital patient records, which will allow NHS professionals to find out about the medical history of people accessing the NHS at any point, including whether they are likely to be eligible for free treatment.
	With regard to hospitals, my right hon. Friend makes a very interesting point about an overseas visitors manager. One of the problems we have is that the incentives in the system positively disincentivise hospitals from declaring foreign users of the NHS. If they declare someone not to be entitled to free NHS care, they have to collect the money from that person themselves, whereas if they do not declare the person not to be entitled to free NHS care, they get paid automatically by their primary care trust or clinical commissioning group. The incentives in the system have acted to suggest that this is a much smaller problem than I believe it is.

Andy Burnham: The NHS must not be open to abuse. Where people do not have entitlement to free treatment, steps should always be taken to recover the costs from individuals and Governments. That clear principle is shared by Members across this House.
	For some time, hospitals have rightly had a legal duty to recover any charges owed from overseas patients. The previous Government proposed a number of further steps, including amending immigration rules so that anyone with substantial medical debts is not allowed back into the country. We welcome efforts to build on that, while always guarding against overblown rhetoric, which does not help the immigration debate. We therefore need more precision and clarity from the Secretary of State. First, on the scale of the problem, as ever with this Government’s announcements, there is already confusion to clear up. Earlier today, the Prime Minister’s spokesperson put the cost to the NHS of health tourism at £10 million to £20 million. On “World at One” this lunchtime, the Secretary of State said that he thinks it is more like £200 million. So which is it? Will the Secretary of State publish the evidence he has to support his claim?
	Secondly, we need more detail on what the Government are proposing. Has the Secretary of State consulted with those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on any proposed changes? There are practical questions on which health professionals will need reassurance. We have heard in the news today about the problems in the UK Border Agency. What assurances can the Secretary of State give to health professionals that they will not be used to plug the gaps that have been created by the Government’s severe cuts to the front line of the UK Border Force? Will they be given a simple way of checking eligibility and not be burdened by extra bureaucracy? Will these changes apply equally to planned and emergency care? If so, that could put health professionals in a difficult ethical position. Does the Secretary of State agree that care should always be provided in life-threatening situations, and will he take this opportunity to reassure health professionals on that important point?
	Finally, the Secretary of State told “World at One” that one of the main reasons he was doing this was to relieve pressure on accident and emergency departments, particularly in London. While we commend moves to prevent abuse of the system, could he not better achieve his aim if he was not planning to close so many A and Es in London?
	The Government have made a lot of assertions, but there is a real lack of policy clarity and evidence. Unless the Secretary of State can provide convincing answers to my questions, the House will be left with the distinct whiff of a cooked-up a story to suit the Government’s political purposes rather than a real drive to protect the NHS from abuse.

Jeremy Hunt: The Government are not going to take any lessons in overblown rhetoric when Labour Members talked about this problem for 13 years and did absolutely nothing about it. What was missing from the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks was a proper apology for Labour’s total failure to control our borders during a period in office that saw a quadrupling of net migration. We do not know how many people are residing in this country illegally, but in January the London School of Economics published a report stating that it could be nearly 900,000 people, in which case the cost will not be a few millions but many, many times that. In 13 years, Labour did not change eligibility for access to free NHS services and did nothing to improve the collection of proper dues from people coming from outside the European Union.
	The £20 million figure that the Prime Minister’s spokesman used this morning is the amount of uncollected debt that is owed to the NHS by foreign nationals. If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to my response, he would know that we believe—of course it is impossible to get exact figures on this because of the total mess that the previous Government created—that we identify less than half the people who should be paying for NHS care and collect less than half the money that should be collected.
	Of course we will work with very closely with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure a co-ordinated approach. If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would have heard that the exemption for emergency care and for public health issues will remain in place, which is extremely important.
	Let me finish by talking about A and E issues. The reality is that the LSE estimates that about 70% of those living illegally in the UK live in London, where A and Es happen to face some of the biggest pressures. University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust opened a new A and E only in the past few years and it was built for a capacity of 65,000 people a year, but it is now seeing 120,000 a year. If the right hon. Gentleman’s Government had done something about this rather than talk about it, A and Es across London would not be facing the pressure they are now facing.

Sarah Wollaston: Will the Secretary of State publish the names of those trusts that are abjectly failing to identify and recover charges from those who are not entitled to free care?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. Part of the problem is that when we should be identifying someone as a foreign national who should pay for their NHS care, that does not happen a lot of the time because of the incentives in the system. Under the NHS improvement initiative, which is taking place in London at present—it is worth looking at that closely, because it has a lot of promise—there is a centralised collection of debt from foreign nationals who owe the NHS so that that does not become the responsibility of individual hospitals, which is something that is putting them off registering people as eligible for their NHS care.

Keith Vaz: May I invite the Secretary of State to comment on the view that one of the reasons why these proposals are being made at this stage is the conclusion of transitional arrangements for Romanians and Bulgarians at the end of this year? The Minister for Immigration is sitting on his right. Is it possible for the Health Department and the Home Office jointly to commission research so that we can have some actual figures as to how many people might be coming at the end of this year?

Jeremy Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman will have to raise the matter of the actual number of people coming to the UK with the Home Secretary or, indeed, the Minister for Immigration.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the issues that we are dealing with are not just about foreign nationals from outside the EU or the European economic area. The rules for EEA members are complex. If people come here to work, we have an obligation under
	EU law to allow them access to free treatment, but if they are economically inactive or if they are temporary visitors, we should be able to reclaim the cost of that treatment from their home country in the EEA. The fact is that we do that very poorly indeed at the moment and that is one of the things we need to change.

Jake Berry: I particularly welcome the linking of visas to health insurance, but will my right hon. Friend explain what will happen if someone who is already in the UK is asked to pay but simply cannot? Will they be refused treatment?

Jeremy Hunt: No one will be refused treatment in a life or death situation. It is important that we state that up front. However, we also want to remove any expectation that people who are not entitled to NHS care are able to come to the UK and get it, and to ask whether we should be giving free NHS care to people such as foreign students who come to the UK and get it. If they went to Australia or America—our two main competitor countries—they would have to take out health insurance or pay a levy to access the local health care system. If those countries do that, I think we should do the same.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Health Secretary aware that when I was in a London hospital some years ago I counted more than 40 staff from different nations? I am proud of my United Nations heart bypass. The message from this Government and many others, including the UK Independence party, is that those of a similar colour, of different colours and of different nationalities can change the bed sheets and operate, but woe betide them if they want to put their head on a pillow when they are ill. What hypocrisy.

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman should do a lot better than that. He should think of his elderly constituents—people with multiple long-term conditions—who are having to wait much longer than they need to because A and Es not just in London, but in many parts of the country, are clogged up with people who may not be entitled to free NHS care because we have a system that culturally and operationally is not able to track these measures. It is in their interests that we must ensure that the NHS is available to people who are entitled to free care. When people are not entitled to free care, the point is not that the NHS is not available to them, but that they should pay for it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: I have a choice on the Lib Dem Benches between two doctors. Let us hear from the good Dr Julian Huppert.

Julian Huppert: The former public health Minister, the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), revealed in a written answer on 17 March 2011 that the sums not collected from overseas patients totalled less than £7 million a year. If we double that and double it again, as the Health Secretary suggests, that is £28 million. Private finance initiative schemes
	cost the NHS that much every two weeks. Which issue is more important in ensuring that we have a properly funded NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: We need to deal with all those issues, and they are all failures of the last Government.

Chris Bryant: There is a problem with recruitment in the NHS not only in England, but in Wales. Last year, Welsh NHS trusts tried to recruit 32 A and E consultants from the UK, but failed to do so and had to go abroad. Is there not a danger that the rhetoric in which the Government are indulging will put off the talented doctors that the NHS in this country needs?

Jeremy Hunt: We owe a great debt to the many talented doctors, nurses and health care assistants who come from overseas and make our NHS what it is. Nothing in our immigration laws will change that.

Conor Burns: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the overwhelming majority of our constituents who travel abroad put in place provision to protect themselves if they fall ill. My constituents and his will be appalled to learn that we do not expect the same of foreign visitors to the United Kingdom. May I congratulate him on his initiative, which began before the Prime Minister’s speech today?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right. We have one of the most generous systems of health provision for overseas visitors of any country in the world. Most other European countries are less generous because they operate a social insurance system, which makes it much easier to collect the money that they are owed by the people who are not entitled to free care. We have to change the system here. The key thing that is wrong with it is free access to primary care, because that is the gateway into the NHS. Although primary care itself is not the most expensive part of the NHS, because of its gateway role, unless we control it, we will not get the overall system under control.

Heidi Alexander: If the child of an asylum seeker who is yet to have their asylum application determined requires NHS primary care, will they still be eligible for free treatment?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes, they will.

Tony Baldry: I am finding it rather difficult to ask a question, because I have been rendered speechless by the chutzpah of Labour Members in not saying that what the Secretary of State proposes is sheer common sense and in not agreeing with him. I have a simple question. How will GPs know which foreign nationals are entitled to NHS care and which are not?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend asks a very important question. We have to recognise the pressure on GPs and must be careful not to increase the bureaucratic burden on them. The long-term answer is to have proper digital patient records. If the first thing that people are asked for when they enter any part of the NHS is an NHS number that allows the person they are seeing to look at
	their medical history, that could be a trigger to identify someone who should be paying for their NHS care. We are seeing whether there is a non-bureaucratic way of achieving that in the short term, while we put that technological system in place.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The Secretary of State and the Conservative party should remember that the coalition has been in power for nearly three years and nothing has happened on this issue. There are two things that he could do. He could withdraw the circular today and he could consider introducing an entitlement card that people could carry with them.

Jeremy Hunt: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his chutzpah in criticising the Government for not doing anything in two and a half years, when his Government did nothing in 13 years.

David Ruffley: The Secretary of State has made it clear why the figure of £20 million a year is a ridiculous underestimate of the true state of affairs. He will be thanked by every British taxpayer in this country, no matter what the saving, because they are getting increasingly tired of services being accessed by people who do not have a proper entitlement to them.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. Of course I want to do a good job for taxpayers, but also for the 3 million British citizens who use the NHS every week and who find a service that, although the Government have protected its budget, is under increased pressure. I want to ensure that the system whereby people from other countries access those same services is one thing, and one thing only: fair.

Emma Reynolds: It would be useful if the Secretary of State provided clarity and accuracy on the numbers we are talking about. The Prime Minister’s spokesperson said that unclaimed costs amount to £20 million, but the Secretary of State seems to be saying £200 million. I wonder whether he can account for the difference. Did he just add a zero?

Jeremy Hunt: I explained where the figure of £20 million came from, and why I believe that is probably the tip of the iceberg. If the hon. Lady really wants to know the answer, we do not know the full extent of the abuse of NHS services because the previous Government left them in such an appalling mess.

Charlie Elphicke: I understand that under the European health insurance card scheme the UK paid out about £1.7 billion for Brits abroad, but claimed only £125 million back. Is that also receiving attention?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes it is. We are always likely to pay out more than we receive under that scheme because we have a number of pensioners who decide to retire to slightly sunnier climes and there is a cost to the UK under EU treaty law with those decisions. My hon. Friend is right to point out that just as inadequate as our failure to charge people from outside the EU when
	we should is our failure to collect money from inside the EU when we are able to, and we must also look at that.

Kevan Jones: The Secretary of State has clarified the Prime Minister’s figure of £20 million, but he used inflammatory language to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) about health tourists clogging up A and Es. He claims that £200 million could be the tip of the iceberg, but if he does not know the figure is that not the worst example of dog-whistle politics?

Jeremy Hunt: If we do not know the figure, is not the right thing to do to find it out and sort out the problem, unlike what the hon. Gentleman’s party did during 13 years in office?

Robin Walker: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who in raising this issue is, as always, streets ahead of those on his own Front Bench.
	May I thank my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary for the extra £20 million funding that the NHS in Worcestershire will receive this year, and urge him to take that agenda forward and ensure that as much funding as possible goes to the residents of Worcestershire and to addressing the kinds of pressures that we saw over the last week in A and E?

Jeremy Hunt: Obviously, I want to ensure that as much money as possible goes to residents throughout the country by tackling abuse, and I would not want to minimise what the issue might be in Worcestershire. I stress, however, that the biggest problem we face is in big urban centres where there are large numbers of illegal immigrants, and we must get a grip of that problem for the sake of the elderly population in those cities.

Barbara Keeley: If the Secretary of State is concerned to protect NHS budgets, why is he allowing a £2.2 billion raid from the Treasury? Is that not a much more serious cut in the NHS services we can pay for in this country?

Jeremy Hunt: If the hon. Lady is worried about that, perhaps she might like to complain to her own party leadership, which, during Labour’s last five years in office, had an average underspend in the NHS of £2 billion.

Henry Smith: I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) on his urgent question, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on following my private Member’s Bill, the NHS Audit Requirements (Foreign Nationals) Bill. When will that primary legislation receive Government time to start its passage through this place?

Jeremy Hunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent private Member’s Bill, which looked forward to many of the problems we are trying to address. Our first step is to identify the scale of the problem. We will then identify the right legislative response, but the response will not all be legislative. That is when we will consider including it in the parliamentary timetable.

Kevin Brennan: In answer to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), the Secretary of State said that when someone does not have the funds, treatment will not be refused if it is a life-and-death situation. For clarity, will he will us what the threshold will be? For example, if someone has a broken leg, or if someone needs another treatment that requires hospital admission, and they do not have the funds, will treatment be refused under his scheme?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that that will be a matter for clinicians, not politicians.

Bob Stewart: Roughly, in percentage terms, how many babies born in maternity wards are born to mothers from the EU?

Jeremy Hunt: I cannot tell my hon. Friend the answer except for one detail: my two children were not born to a mother from the EU.

Mark Reckless: The Secretary of State has explained that the July guidance was from an independent body and in line with the existing rules. Who wrote the existing rules? Will he confirm that he will change them?

Jeremy Hunt: The rules existed for 13 years under the Labour Government, who did absolutely nothing to change them. We are tackling the problem. If Labour Members had any grace, they would thank us for doing so.

John Pugh: When I tabled questions last year, I was told that we collect £51 million a year for treatment from EU countries, but that they collect £451 million—nine times more—back from us. Is this an issue not of immigration, but of coding, charging and collecting?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend might be right—we need to look at that—but as I have told my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), one factor is that a number of our pensioners retire to sunnier climates, which leads to that imbalance.

Andrew Selous: Is the Health Secretary aware that general practitioners have been calling for the measures to be taken for some time? The Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire local medical committee wrote to me some time ago expressing its concerns that overseas nationals were coming here for expensive operations. It will be very pleased at what he has done today.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend speaks wisely. NHS professionals on the front line have been conscious of the problem for a long time, but have been frustrated that nothing has been done. I therefore hope that they very much welcome today’s announcement.

Richard Graham: Now that Labour has realised it is legitimate to discuss immigration, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time for the Opposition to acknowledge that legitimate charges by the NHS to EU and other residents were not collected
	properly for 13 years; that identifying the £20 million as the tip of the unpaid iceberg is the right thing to do; and that a tightening of procedures on debt collection will be welcomed by my constituents and fair to all our constituents throughout the country?

Jeremy Hunt: Absolutely. It is astonishing that the Labour party complains in one breath about pressures on A and E, and the next moment tries to make light of the serious attempts the Government are making to get a grip of the problem.

David Davies: Does the Secretary of State agree that the vast majority of people in the UK will welcome these long-overdue proposals? Will he explain what he will do to ensure that those who are denied treatment because they are here illegally and not entitled to it cannot simply slip over the border to Wales or Scotland, which, unfortunately, are in the throes of an NHS run by socialist Governments?

Jeremy Hunt: We will work closely with the devolved authorities to ensure we have a co-ordinated response to the problem, but I agree that today’s announcement will be welcomed by the vast majority of people in the country, who will be astonished that the Labour party, even now, seeks to minimise the problem.

Andrew Bridgen: Given that the UK has one of very few genuine free-at-the-point-of-need health care systems, does my right hon. Friend agree that, without his sensible reforms, the UK will continue to be seen as the destination of choice for anyone around the world seeking high-quality, free medical treatment paid for by the UK taxpayer?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is because I support the principle of free-at-the-point-of-use health care that I do not want anything to undermine it, and abuse of the system by people who are not entitled to free NHS care is the single thing that would most shake the public’s trust in an important part of what the NHS has to offer. That is why we must tackle this problem.

Harriett Baldwin: The Secretary of State rightly recognises that accident and emergency is a special case, but when I broke my fingers in Brussels I was asked to pay by credit card at the end of my treatment. A lot of people who present at A and E have non-life threatening conditions. Is that something we could do here?

Jeremy Hunt: I understand my hon. Friend’s sense of unfairness at being asked to pay for her treatment by credit card, when we do not do that to foreign nationals who are treated in the NHS. I do not, however, want the NHS to become a service where the first question people are asked relates to their credit card or cheque book. If we are going to protect that much-cherished principle of NHS treatment, we need to get a grip on the kind of abuse that has run unchecked for far too long.

Peter Bone: Does the Secretary of State agree that the House is divided by two schools: the Opposition, who believe that the NHS
	should not charge anyone, which is why they did nothing for 13 years; and Government Members, who believe that foreign nationals who should pay, must pay.

Jeremy Hunt: I agree, and nothing we have heard this afternoon will give the British public any comfort at all that the Opposition get this problem.

Andrew Jones: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Does he agree that the previous Government’s failure to tackle health tourism encouraged overseas visitors to abuse our NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right. One reason we are tackling this problem is not just because of the health agenda we have been discussing this afternoon, but because abuse of NHS services fuels broader immigration problems. That is one of the core reasons the previous Government failed to get a grip of net migration in particular.

Jason McCartney: Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust spent £305,341 on interpreter services between 2009 and 2011. Will my right hon. Friend include the costs of translation services when working out the costs of health tourism?

Jeremy Hunt: I would want to be careful to discriminate between the needs of British citizens and people who are entitled to free NHS care who have not had the education or support they need to learn English but who should still continue to receive free, high quality NHS care, and foreign nationals who are not entitled to free NHS care and who should pay the cost of any translation required.

Philip Hollobone: My constituents are absolutely furious that non-entitled foreign nationals are effectively getting free access to our NHS, and I welcome the steps my right hon. Friend is making to tackle this issue. Will he ensure that Her Majesty’s Government fast-track legislation, with an announcement in the Queen’s Speech, and challenge the Opposition either to bring down or pass that legislation in the next parliamentary year?

Jeremy Hunt: I have visited Kettering hospital, and I know just how hard its front-line professionals work and the pressures they are under. All I can say to my hon. Friend is that the Leader of the House of Commons is sitting here and has heard what he has said, and I would certainly support the early introduction of legislation on this matter.

Points of Order

Graham Jones: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your advice on the tragic death of my constituent, Lucy Meadows, a transgender teacher who was vilified by the Daily Mail and other newspapers? The cause of death is not yet clear and we await the coroner’s report, but the police have said that there are no suspicious circumstances. Miss Meadows apparently complained to the press about their harassment—about them being camped outside her house, their attempts to pay parents to obtain photographs of her, and, failing that, downloading photographs from her family’s Facebook pages. To be on the receiving end of such behaviour must have been tortuous for her. An online petition against the actions of the Daily Mail has now received in excess of 110,000 signatures in just two days. The Press Complaints Commission failed her and is widely considered to be discredited. Therefore, can you, Mr Speaker, advise MPs on how complaints can and should be taken forward in such cases?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order, and I am sure that I speak for the whole House in expressing our sorrow at his constituent’s tragic death. I hope he will also appreciate that I am not familiar with the details of this case and that it would be wrong for me to comment on it. Suffice it to say that abuse and vilification of the kind he describes are despicable and intolerable in a civilised society. It is not, however, clear to me that there is a point of order here for the Chair to address. Nor is it obvious to me that it is for me to advise him on how he and other right hon. and hon. Members should proceed in these circumstances. Suffice it to say that he has aired the matter today. The facilities of the Table Office and the Order Paper are open to him, and if, as more information emerges or his interest is extended, he wishes to bring these matters to the House’s attention, he can be sure of having the opportunity to do so.

Succession to Hereditary Peerages and Estates

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Mary Macleod: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove male-preference primogeniture in succession to hereditary peerages and estates.
	This motion is about building fairness, modernity and equality in our society. All hon. Members will agree with the simple premise that women play an integral role in society and that we want them all to have the opportunity to achieve their potential. I congratulate the Government on what they have done so far to increase fairness and equality in society since 2010, through initiating the Lord Davies women on boards review; encouraging women to set up businesses through business mentors; setting up the Women’s Business Council; setting the target that 50% of new appointments to boards of public bodies should be women; announcing a new system of shared parental leave; extending free child care; closing the gender pay gap; and extending the right to request flexible working. All these things will give women a better chance to play their full part in society, in the workplace and in public life.
	Today’s motion is another step that needs to be taken to promote gender equality in our society. Currently, for most hereditary peerages, there is male-preference cognatic primogeniture, which means that the firstborn son will, in most cases, inherit the entire estate and that, if there are no sons, it will go to another male descendant. Now is a good time to consider this issue, as the Succession to the Crown Bill makes its way through Parliament. Like the majority of hon. Members, I welcome the changes it will bring. Her Majesty the Queen is leading the way and showing us how the monarchy can change and adapt for modern times, without losing the history and tradition that make it so special and fundamental to our culture.
	During the debate on the Bill, many of my hon. Friends in this Chamber and the other place, including the noble Lord Lucas and Baroness Symons, asked why male-preference inheritance would continue to apply in hereditary peerages after being removed from the monarchy. I agreed with the Government that the Bill should focus on the monarchy, but we now have an opportunity to get rid of the current discrimination. The recent changes in the monarchy leave the aristocracy two steps behind, because, as it stands today, a woman such as Her Majesty the Queen can inherit the throne in the absence of men.
	The 9 million viewers of “Downton Abbey” will no doubt be familiar with the story where the Earl of Grantham is unable to leave his title and estate to his eldest daughter, Lady Mary. We might think of “Downton Abbey” as depicting a quaint historical era, but that remains the situation today, and I believe that the time is right to address this issue. Hon. Members might ask, “Why bother to change something that affects only very few people?” I personally believe that this is about much more than titles and the aristocracy; this is symbolic. It is about the principles of fairness and equality. I urge the Government to consult, because it is another way to
	show how important women are to society and how much we need women to have an equal role in business, in the community and in the nation.
	As many have pointed out, the current situation in the aristocracy is complex, with different rules applying in different family situations. Indeed, the noble Lord Strathclyde, the former Leader of the House of Lords, responding to a question on this issue, said:
	“The Government believe that it is time to deal with the issue of succession to the Crown, and there is no simple read-across to succession to the hereditary peerage, which is infinitely more complicated and affects many more families.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 380.]
	He was absolutely right, but I was brought up to believe that anything is possible, and I believe we can change things, no matter how complex. Frankly, if we can get 16 Commonwealth realms to agree to Crown succession, I am sure we can achieve this, too.
	The current situation is complex. Older baronies were created by means of a writ of summons to Parliament. These baronies became heritable over time and tend to descend through the bloodline, with preference for males, but not excluding females. Later peerages were mostly created by patent. These peerages typically descend to the male heir; however, special remainders have sometimes been granted for war leaders such as Nelson, Kitchener and Mountbatten that give the peerages an extra chance of survival. In Scotland, peerages vary according to their limitation, which could be to a male heir, an heir of either sex or a series of named individuals.
	According to “Debrett’s Peerage and Baronetage 2011”, there are just 13 hereditary peeresses in their own right: six in England and six in Scotland, while one—Countess Mountbatten—is a peeress of the United Kingdom. In the majority of cases these days, a peerage is a dignity only and is not necessarily bound up with real estate. However, in some cases there is a direct link, known as an “entail”. I will not dwell at length on any individual story that brings to life this unfairness, as these are personal, family situations. However, there are many examples that we can consider, such as Baron Braybrooke, whose title will go to his fourth cousin once removed, rather than one of his eight daughters, whom I am sure are more than competent to succeed. The Duke of Rutland’s three daughters will not inherit their family seat, Belvoir castle. Of the 92 hereditary peers taking their seats in the House of Lords, there are only two women: Lady Saltoun and the Countess of Mar. This is clear evidence that there is something not right about the current system.
	I am calling for a consultation on the issue today because I believe that in society we should have equality when it comes to gender. Women have proved time and again that they are more than capable of any task in business, politics, the community or public life. The role of women has changed dramatically in the course of history. In this day and age, it is therefore quite wrong that women are so unlikely to inherit peerages. I agreed wholeheartedly with the noble Lord Fellowes of West Stafford, who put it perfectly:
	“If you’re asking me if I find it ridiculous that…a perfectly sentient adult woman has no rights of inheritance whatsoever when it comes to a hereditary title, I think it’s outrageous”.
	Gone are the days when daughters in the nobility were simply married off, with titles and estates left to their “warrior-like” sons, who alone were considered trustworthy
	enough to protect the future title and estate. Frankly, that sounds rather laughable now, in a world where girls are significantly outperforming boys in education and where the skills of financial management and accountancy are far more important than those of physical warfare. We have come a long way in terms of women’s rights in many areas—the right to vote, to become a Member of Parliament and even to be Prime Minister. As chairman of the all-party group on women in Parliament, I want to increase the numbers of women in the House of Commons and the other place. This Bill may even be a way of achieving that.
	Given that this is a complex issue, I believe the first step is to have a consultation, to find the best approach to bring about this change. Different approaches could be considered, including asking the monarch to change the patent for particular titles; sponsoring a private Bill relevant to a particular case; creating a new statutory framework that allowed families to change the rules voluntarily; or passing an Act of Parliament to create a new statutory framework. The UK would not be trail-blazing in taking this issue forward. In 2006, King Juan Carlos I of Spain issued a decree reforming the succession to noble titles. He said:
	“Men and women have an equal right of succession in Grandee of Spain and nobility titles, and no person may be given preference in the normal order of succession for reasons of gender”.
	Personally, I would favour the final option: a new statutory framework that would cover all situations, to ensure clarity and efficiency.
	The role of women over the centuries has changed in society. The monarchy is about to change to recognise the important role of women. I believe hereditary peerages need to change, too. This is a matter of fairness and it is right that we as Members of Parliament did our best to get rid of discrimination and ensure fairness in all aspects of society. Today, let us celebrate the modern role of women and look to promote equality in all parts of society, so that every woman in this country can aspire to and achieve her potential. I hope the House will support this Motion and give me leave to introduce it.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mary Macleod, Oliver Colvile, Penny Mordaunt, Yasmin Qureshi, Jane Ellison and Mrs Eleanor Laing present the Bill.
	Mary Macleod accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 May, and to be printed (Bill 153).

Caroline Lucas: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I wondered whether the hon. Lady was hailing a taxi. I am afraid that I am not available for that purpose, but I am happy to respond to her attempted point of order.

Caroline Lucas: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. I know that colleagues will want to get on with the main business, but I wish to raise a brief point of order.
	The Justice and Security Bill goes to the other place for its final stages tomorrow, but this House has still not been informed whether the introduction of secret courts affects habeas corpus. Indeed, the House has had no fewer than four different answers from the Minister without Portfolio, ranging from “yes”, “no” and “not sure” to “I’ll check”. Will you rule, Mr Speaker, on whether the Minister without Portfolio should come back to the House before the Bill gets its Royal Assent to tell us what the right answer is?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. It is not actually a point of order for the Chair, but I would say that the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), has been in this House, if memory serves, for more than 42 and a half years and it will be 43 years in June. I think he takes his responsibilities to the House very seriously. If, as a result of the matters described by the hon. Lady, there is a requirement for clarification, I feel sure that the Minister without Portfolio will provide it at the appropriate time. We will leave it there for today.

Ways and Means

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
	 — 
	AMENDMENT OF THE LAW

Debate resumed (Order, 22 March).
	Question again proposed,
	(1) That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance.
	(2) This Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—
	(a) for zero-rating or exempting a supply, acquisition or importation;
	(b) for refunding an amount of tax;
	(c) for any relief, other than a relief that—
	(i) so far as it is applicable to goods, applies to goods of every description, and
	(ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.

Eric Pickles: In common with the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), I too drive a London taxi, and no reasonable offer will be refused.
	This is the coalition Government’s fourth Budget—a Budget determined to stay the course and fill the sink-hole of debt left to us by the last Administration. Thanks to our actions, the deficit is down by a third—from 11% of gross domestic product under Labour to a forecast 7% this year. It is set to fall even lower to as little as 2% by 2017-18. All the while, we have kept interest rates at a record low and created 1.25 million new jobs while reducing the number of workless households by 250,000.
	Local government, which accounts for a quarter of all public spending, is doing its bit to help to pay off Labour’s deficit—and the result? Since the general election, according to the Local Government Association’s own polling, residents’ satisfaction with their councils has increased. Ipsos MORI has found that two thirds of residents have not noticed any changes in the quality of council services. Well-run councils are making sensible savings, protecting front-line services and keeping council tax down. Of course more savings need to be made to pay off Labour’s debt, but we are on the side of people with gumption who protect and enhance public services, so this Budget is about rewarding aspiration and boosting growth; it is about helping businesses to create jobs, and about giving a leg up to wannabe home owners.
	The housing market is critical to Britain’s economic success, yet one of the most tragic effects of Labour’s toxic legacy was its impact on that market. Whereas Margaret Thatcher gave a generation the hope of owning their own homes, Labour crushed their dreams, leaving us with a planning system bogged down by arcane rules and regulations, house building falling to its lowest peacetime rate since the 1920s, rising prices, falling mortgages, and tenants with no hope of buying. A lost generation of people were forced to stay where they were, living their best years in the hope that their lottery numbers might come up or the bank of mum and dad would bail them out. This is truly a toxic legacy.

Edward Leigh: As usual, the Secretary of State is making a very good case. If most people do not notice any difference in the service provided by local government despite all the cuts, does that serve as a lesson for central Government as well?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a very reasonable point. My own Department in central Government has reduced its running costs by 41% in real terms, so we have led by example.
	The Government have set about turning things around. This is a complex area, and the solution requires action on multiple fronts. We have taken three important steps. First, we are radically reforming the planning system to crank up the engine and get things moving. Secondly, we are giving builders certainty so that they can get Britain building. Thirdly, we are intervening dramatically to help people step on to the first rung of the housing ladder. It may be helpful if I set out our approach to each of those issues.

David Hanson: Will the Secretary of State tell me how under-occupancy relates to the mortgage relief schemes that the Treasury announced last week? If, for example, one individual buys a house with three bedrooms, will that person be subject to the under-occupancy tests that apply to those in social housing?

Eric Pickles: I think that only the Labour party would confuse taxation with entitlement to benefit. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, since coming to office we have made great play of the need to release a number of unoccupied houses, and thus far we have made quite a push towards that. Every household in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency is now paying £900 to subsidise housing benefit. If his council wants to pay more, it can do so.

David Hanson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Eric Pickles: No. The right hon. Gentleman has had his chance to intervene, and his intervention was not very good.
	Let me deal first with our reforms of the planning system. Labour’s top-down, centralist approach built nothing but resentment. Its regional strategies added a layer of red tape that paralysed planning. By the time of the general election, six years after Labour’s Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, only one in six councils had adopted a core strategy and only one in four had a five-year land supply.
	Nor did Labour’s approach lead to better co-ordination. The regional spatial strategies of the unelected regional assemblies contradicted the regional economic strategies of the unelected regional development agencies. Fortunately, the Localism Act 2011 is now scrapping Labour’s regional planning. The national planning policy framework has streamlined 1,000 pages of confusing Whitehall guidance and placed local plans in pole position—safeguarding the green belt, introducing a new protection for valuable green spaces, amending bureaucratic change-of-use rules to make it easier to get redundant and empty buildings back into productive use, and kick-starting brownfield regeneration.

Kate Green: One innovation that has been introduced is a simplified planning system for business neighbourhoods, but very little progress seems to have been made in implementing that in Trafford Park, in my constituency. What will happen to speed up that process?

Eric Pickles: I will certainly have a look at the particular circumstances to which the hon. Lady refers. I have been pleased to see the growth in neighbourhood plans, which are analogous to what she is suggesting. Indeed, I visited a village in my constituency that is looking forward to introducing them. They give people and businesses a much bigger say.

David Wright: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Eric Pickles: Of course I will give way to my favourite Labour MP.

David Wright: I am grateful. City deals offer real flexibility for local communities, and we would like to work with the Department to secure a city deal for Telford. There is Homes and Communities Agency land on the ledger that could be shifted off, through a profit-sharing agreement with the Department, to make sure we get housing land and business development land. Is the Secretary of State willing to meet to talk about a city deal for Telford?

Eric Pickles: This is the second time the hon. Gentleman has asked whether I am willing to see him. I am; indeed, only this morning I sent out, at my own expense, for some high-quality tea and better biscuits for him. We are looking forward to seeing him.
	Seven out of 10 councils have published a local plan, and the figure continues to rise. Nearly nine in 10 planning applications are approved—a 10-year high. Indications are that there are fewer planning appeals, meaning that local decision making is to the fore. The latest data from Glenigan show that planning approvals for new homes are up 62% year on year, and 33% up on the previous quarter.
	However, brushing the cobwebs off the planning system is only part of the plan. As a result of Labour’s inaction, this country is crying out for more homes to meet that desperate demand, so this Government are helping to get development off the ground. Locally supported, once-mothballed large-scale sites—such as in Cranbrook, in Milton Keynes, in Eastern Quarry and in Wokingham—are now being kick-started. We should contrast that with Labour’s top-down eco-towns, which delivered not a single home.
	Our programme is set to deliver 170,000 new affordable homes, almost 63,000 of which are already completed, by 2015. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors says that home sales have reached their highest level in more than two and a half years, while builders from Barratt to Bovis say that Government schemes are driving increased sales, putting people back on the property path.

Geoffrey Robinson: We can give moderate support to the expansion of the Firstbuy scheme, which sounds good. Indeed, I recently
	visited such a scheme on the old Jaguar site in my constituency, which has proved a great help. However, does the Secretary of State not agree that making the mortgage expansion scheme available to second home buyers would be quite obscene, given that we are imposing a bedroom tax on those who can ill afford it?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, and if that were a way in which Mrs Pickles and I could obtain a second home in Frinton, it would indeed be a scandal, but that is certainly not the Government’s intention. However, in our endeavours to ensure that I do not end up with a nice little flat in Frinton, we have to be careful not to rule out people whose marriage has just broken down, or situations in which parents are acting as part-guarantors. By September, we will be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman on this issue.
	We know that the demand is there, but it is also clear that for many individuals in very good jobs the housing ladder simply remains out of reach. Under Labour the number of first-time buyers plummeted to a 30-year low. Labour’s 2005 manifesto promised 1 million more home owners, but home ownership fell by a third of a million in the last Parliament. The industry is clear about what lies at the root of the problem. The British Property Federation says:
	“Helping people needing a deposit has for some time been cited as the missing piece of a coherent housing policy”.

Angus MacNeil: What does the Secretary of State think the mortgage guarantee scheme will do to house prices? Is there a danger of increased demand and no increase in supply, and prices going up?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. However, housing prices are at a more reasonable level now, we will be increasing supply and of course there will be a check on the scheme, through the Bank of England, to see that it is renewed every three years. So the worries that he raises are not correct—

Barry Sheerman: rose—

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman is jumping up and down. I have not said that I will give way, but I will.

Barry Sheerman: It is very kind of the right hon. Gentleman, who knows that I love intervening on him because I always get such a good response! It is supply that is wrong in this country; there is a national emergency in the supply of affordable housing. There are 1.5 million people on the minimum wage in this country. The waiting list in Kirklees has zoomed to having 17,500 people on it. These people do not have much money, they have little hope of ever buying their own home and they need a good affordable home now.

Eric Pickles: Of course they do, and it is a matter of regret that the number of affordable houses fell by 420,000-odd during Labour’s period in office, and we see a way in which we can achieve a number of affordable houses. As I said, we are well on track to deliver 170,000 and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased about that. I wish to make this contrast for him, because we have the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition’s remarks on Labour’s housing plans. He says:
	“We didn’t do enough... I don’t have a solution for this, but in the end government has to invest in housing, and...it’s a massive challenge”.
	I think we can all agree with that—we can all unite behind those principles—so where the last Administration wrung their hands, this Government are stepping in. In the past couple of years, we have made sure that first-time buyers and those looking to buy a brand-new property have been given a helping hand. We also reinvigorated the right to buy, building mixed communities, more affordable homes and giving social tenants a chance to move up the housing ladder. This Government believe in extending opportunity to everyone who works hard and wants to do so.
	The Home Builders Federation has said:
	“If people can’t buy, builders can’t build”.
	It has also said that “people’s inability to buy” has been the biggest “constraint” on house building. That is why in the Budget we announced our help to buy scheme. It is here to help in two ways: it is offering an equitable loan and a mortgage guarantee.

Clive Efford: Given that 60% of homes built in central London are being sold to overseas buyers, how does the Secretary of State think that the help to buy scheme will affect the prices of those properties and people’s ability to enter the housing market if he does not deal with that problem?

Eric Pickles: This scheme will not be available for foreign buyers; this is a scheme to help people from this country. That situation did not happen overnight, and the hon. Gentleman’s own Government signally failed to do anything about it. It is perhaps apposite for me to raise the issues to do with social housing.
	As well as rewarding those who want to get on, we are taking tough action to tackle those who want a free ride and who are abusing the housing system. We are announcing today new measures to stop rogue landlords cashing in from renting homes to illegal migrants and we are also ensuring fair play in the allocation of taxpayer-funded social housing. We are tackling the widespread perception that the way social housing is allocated is unfair and favours foreign migrants over local people and members of the armed services.
	It is true that one in 10 of all the new social housing tenancies in England go to a foreign migrant whereas in London one in five social housing tenancies belong to a foreign migrant. That is not fair to people who have worked hard and paid their taxes in Britain, so new rules will ensure that councils give priority to local people and to the armed forces when allocating social housing. That tough action will tackle the pull factors that led to unsustainable immigration under Labour and it will help community cohesion by ensuring fair play and removing the perception of unfairness that extremists exploit.

Anne Begg: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is very keen that the work force should be mobile and able to move around the country to where there is work. However, would that
	not make the person moving into an area no longer a local, meaning that they would not qualify for social housing?

Eric Pickles: As the hon. Lady knows, under this Government and the previous Government a number of schemes have enabled tenants in social housing to swap between local authorities. Those schemes will continue to operate.
	We are offering a simple and proportionate response to housing needs. As my second favourite member of the Labour party, Lord Mandelson, remarked last week:
	“I can’t quite remember which member of the government it was who claimed to have abolished boom and bust. Well, we abolished boom”.
	Last week, Labour was again playing the politics of envy and division, attacking the fact that we are helping hard-working families in middle England, in both the north and the south. Let me be clear for Labour’s benefit. We are not about to introduce 110% or even 100% mortgages for those who cannot afford to pay, but 95% mortgages for people who, but for the financial crisis, could have put enough money aside.
	The checks are in place. Applicants will need to prove they can repay the loan before they pick up the front door key. As I said to the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), this is not a scheme for second home owners, but the rules need to be carefully worded so we do not slam the door on parents who want to do a bit for their kids or prevent people from rebuilding their lives after family breakdown. Unlike Labour, this Government have not given up on growing families who are in properties too small for their needs, buyers looking to make that first step, or tenants who believe they can aim higher. We will continue to work closely with the industry to do everything in our power to make sure home hopefuls realise their dreams.

Bob Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend educate me, as I am probably mistaken, but will it be possible for a first-time buyer to buy a house that is not a new build?

Eric Pickles: Two schemes will be available. The first is the homebuy scheme, which will start from 1 April and is for new construction. From January next year, it will also be possible for buyers to purchase properties other than new builds.
	The Government are giving the housing market a kick-start and are maintaining momentum on supply. On planning, we will be reducing planning burdens, making better use of empty buildings, bringing people back to live in town centres and supporting shops. There will be funding of more than £1 billion for thousands of new affordable and privately rented homes, for which we know there is demand. We are putting spades back into the ground and more workers back on site, and giving people more options over where they live.
	We are also building on the success of our rejuvenated right to buy. Between July and September last year, numbers doubled, but we will go further. That is why we have put before Parliament regulations that will increase the discount for Londoners, where house prices are highest, to £100,000. The measure will come into effect from midnight tonight.
	We are reducing waiting lists for tenants who are ready to move on. Under our schemes, new homes will be built to replace those sold. What is Labour’s response? The Local Government Association Labour group says that the new right to buy is
	“a cynical move by the government which is in effect forcing a fire-sale of community assets.”
	I am sorry that the shadow communities Minister, the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), is not in the Chamber. He too attacked the scheme and bemoaned the fact that in the 1980s,
	“we saw council houses being sold off in their millions, and now the Government are at it again.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2012; Vol. 541, c. 241WH.]
	As the late Alan Freeman would have said, “Not half we ain’t.”
	Labour are the enemies of aspiration. Every council tenant on every council estate who wanted to work hard and move up had the ladder of opportunity kicked away from them under Labour. It will be restored by the coalition. The Government have accepted Michael Heseltine’s proposals for devolving power to local areas, a natural extension of the measures in the Localism Act 2011. The Government are taking decisive action in favour of families with ambition.
	The head of the CBI said that
	“our call for a focus on the short-term boost of housing has been heeded, alongside an increase in longer-term big ticket infrastructure spending…by shifting £6 billion to housing and infrastructure, the Government has sowed the seeds for growth and jobs.”
	The Budget is tackling Labour’s toxic legacy. It is prising open the door of opportunity and heralding a day long overdue, when those who have put everything into this country finally get the chance to own a little piece of the place they call home.
	I commend the Budget to the House.

Hilary Benn: I draw the attention of the House to an indirect interest, declarable but not registerable, as my wife receives rental income from a property.
	We welcome this opportunity to discuss the Budget and housing. The housing crisis has come upon us over many years—people living longer, a rising population, the breakdown of relationships and new families looking for a secure home. There is rising demand but not enough supply. The well housed—the majority—are affected only when they think about where their children can afford to live, whether they want to rent or to buy; while the younger generation, priced out of the market, see their dream of home ownership recede into the distance.
	The Minister responsible for planning, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), expressed the consequences eloquently in his Policy Exchange speech earlier this year, when he talked about the misery of young families forced to grow up in tiny flats with no outside space, and working men and women in their 20s and 30s having to live with their parents or share bedrooms with friends. Doing something about that is a task for all of us. We have to harness
	land, money and consent to build the communities we need so that young people and families can build a better future.
	Ministers have made big claims for what was announced in the Budget. Of course we welcome steps that will enable people to get a foot on the housing ladder, and where they work, we will support them; after all, helping people to get a home is exactly what we have been calling on the Government to do. But the proof will lie in the detail of the schemes and on progress in actually managing to build more homes. As always with the Secretary of State, the issue is not so much his stated intention as his delivery. Perhaps that explains why we have had four major housing launches over the past three years and more than 300 announcements on housing; and why, in his recent speech to the Conservative spring conference on what he had actually achieved, the Secretary of State devoted three words to building more houses, and 194 words to talking about closing down a bar in the basement of his Department.
	In the past few days, headline after headline has queried the Government’s grasp of the detail of its latest scheme. The Chancellor did not seem to know, and neither did the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether the scheme could indeed act as a spare-home subsidy, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor memorably christened it; whereas they certainly know that they are forcing social tenants out of their own homes because they have a spare room.
	Let us begin by examining the facts about the Government’s record. Housing starts fell by 11% last year to 98,000. The number of private homes started was down; the number of local authority homes started was down; and the number of housing association homes started was down—indeed, the figure of 19,460 was the lowest for eight years.

Bob Russell: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in 13 years of Labour government fewer council houses were built than in the entire period of the Thatcher Government?

Hilary Benn: I will happily confirm that we did not build enough council houses, although that began to change in 2007. Indeed, 70,000 affordable homes for which this Government have tried to take credit in their target of 170,000 were started by the Labour Government.

Andrew Gwynne: I urge my right hon. Friend to resist the temptation raised by the Secretary of State to be too political, and commend to him the partnership work of Labour Tameside council and New Charter housing trust, which together have set the ambition and the reality of producing one affordable home a day for the next three years. That is Labour in action.

Hilary Benn: I welcome the efforts that my hon. Friend has described. I said a moment ago that this is a responsibility for all of us, but I cannot promise to resist the temptations presented by the Secretary of State, given what he had to say.
	Ministers do not want to talk about housing starts, because the figures are bad, so instead they want to focus on completions. Let us have a look at them. The facts are pretty stark. The number of completions in
	England in each of the first two years of the coalition Government was lower than in any one of the 13 years of the Labour Government. In other words, we completed more homes in every one of those years than the Government have managed in either year since they were elected. Indeed, the Secretary of State has the dubious distinction of presiding over the lowest level of completions by any peacetime Government since the mid-1920s. That is some achievement. No wonder the construction industry has been so hard hit. Eighty thousand construction workers are out of work, and output has fallen by 8.2%, contributing a great deal to the absence of growth in the British economy. The rate of home ownership has fallen, and there are 136,000 fewer home owners than when the Government came to power. That is hitting the youngest hardest, because the average age of a first-time buyer is now 37.
	Official statistics from the Secretary of State’s Homes and Communities Agency show that affordable housing starts collapsed in the last financial year by 68%; homelessness and rough sleeping are up by a third since the election; the number of families with children and/or a pregnant woman housed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for six weeks or more has risen by over 800% since the coalition came together; and 125 councils have had families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for six weeks or more. As private rents have continued their relentless rise and incomes are squeezed, more people in work have to claim housing benefit to help them pay the rent.

Alun Cairns: I am struggling with an inconsistency on the Labour Benches. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), said that housing was essentially a private sector operation and that the public sector need not be involved in it.

Hilary Benn: I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that if he cares to look at the record of the Labour Government, he will see that 2 million more homes were built during those 13 years, 500,000 of which were affordable homes that we provided, and 1 million more families were able to buy their own home. That stands in comparison to the Government’s miserable record over the past two years.

Clive Efford: In response to the previous intervention, I remind Members that this Government inherited the biggest council house building programme for 20 years, but one of their first decisions was to scrap it, which is why we have so few social housing starts.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is correct. That is a consequence of the 60% cut.
	The number of people on housing benefit has gone up by 300,000, almost entirely accounted for by people in work. When the Prime Minister launched NewBuy, the previous scheme, in March last year, we were told that it would help 100,000 people to get a mortgage. A year on, how many people has it actually helped? The answer is 1,500. Firstbuy, which was slightly more successful, has helped 6,000 people against a target of 16,500.
	Then there is the strange case of the remarkably reclusive infrastructure guarantee. It was launched by the Chancellor in the autumn statement. He said that he would set aside £10 billion for investment in housing. It sounded good and we supported it, but we now know that not a single penny of it has yet been used to support house building. The facts are clear: lots of promises, precious little delivered, and not a lot for the Secretary of State to crow about.

Barry Sheerman: Many of my constituents are fed up with listening to Punch and Judy debates like this. They are getting tired of hearing, “They did this, but we didn’t do that.” Could we not offer the Government a proper agreement to discuss the way forward to deliver affordable housing now, because it is a national emergency? Is there not a possibility that the parties in this House could get together for a change?

Hilary Benn: Well, I have already told the Secretary of State that when he has proposals that will work and succeed, I will support them. If he wants the benefit of further advice from the Opposition, I would be happy to see him in his office, especially if he is buying the tea and biscuits himself.

Richard Graham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Hilary Benn: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I wish to make a little more progress.
	I will now turn to the Budget. I have some questions to put to the Secretary of State. We know that the Government have a soft spot for people who earn a lot of money, but why is he proposing that his new deposit and mortgage scheme should be made available to anyone earning any amount, including millionaires, so that they can buy a house worth up to £600,000? Why is he changing the rules in that way, given that Firstbuy is currently only for those with family incomes below £60,000, and given that the Treasury document published last Wednesday states that the scheme is meant to help
	“households struggling to save for the high mortgage deposits required by lenders”?
	How many struggling top rate taxpayers does he expect to take advantage of the new scheme? No doubt they will be very grateful to him for his generosity.
	In respect of the mortgage guarantee element of the help-to-buy scheme, can the Secretary of State clarify once and for all whether people who already own a property will be able to use it to buy a second home? He did not quite answer that earlier—[Interruption.] No, he did not. On Thursday, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Secretary could not answer the question. When asked, he simply said:
	“The scheme has not yet been designed in detail.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 1102.]
	At the same time, the Minister for Housing the told “The World at One” that second-home purchases would not be allowed. The BBC then reported that No. 10 had had to clarify the position. It seemed that the Housing Minister had been referring to another part of the help-to-buy scheme relating to equity loans. So yesterday we all turned on “The Andrew Marr Show” to watch
	the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and far from ruling it out categorically, he said, in a formulation that the Secretary of State has repeated today:
	“Our intention is not to help people to buy second homes”.
	If the Government do not want it to happen, why do Ministers not simply make it clear that it is not going to happen? Otherwise, reminiscent of last year’s Budget, we will have fanfare followed by farce.
	In the event that these schemes are over-subscribed, what criteria will be used to determine which applicants are going to get assistance? I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State when he said that foreign nationals would not be eligible for assistance from the scheme, but where in the Government’s scheme description does it say that foreign nationals will not be eligible? I have looked at the mortgage eligibility criteria, and they do not say that. Has he taken any advice on whether EU nationals who are resident in the UK will be barred by law from taking part in the scheme?
	What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the impact that “help to buy” will have on the housing market, given that we know that it is the lack of supply that has led to high house prices? The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has warned that the Government must be careful not to create “another housing bubble”. It seems that the scheme is not even a done deal with the lenders, because the Council of Mortgage Lenders has set out certain conditions that it wants to be met, or else, it warns, the scheme could be made “uneconomical”. How many additional homes, in total, does the Secretary of State think will be built as a result of the scheme?

Fiona O'Donnell: Will my right hon. Friend also seek clarity on whether, in the event of a family break-up and a parent wishing to buy a home, that parent will be restricted in the number of bedrooms they can have in that home, or is aspiration only for some and not for others?

Hilary Benn: That is a very good question that has already been asked. I am very happy to give way to the Secretary of State if he wishes to answer it. Does he wish to answer? No, he does not.
	We need a lot of new affordable homes because of the decision taken by the Government nearly three years ago to slash the affordable housing budget, when £4 billion was taken away. We are then asked to be grateful to the Secretary of State when we hear in the Budget announcements that an additional £225 million will be made available, although it seems that only £125 million of it will be spent before 2015. That figure is dwarfed by the original £4 billion cut. We are told that this is a time for tough choices. A quarter of a billion pounds was identified by the Secretary of State to try to persuade councils to collect the bins in the way that he thinks is correct. It was such a failure that only one council took him up on his offer. A quarter of a billion pounds and one council: think how many affordable homes that money could have been used to build! If the Government want to be taken seriously on affordable housing, they have to will the means. That is why we called for the 4G auction proceeds and the bankers’ bonus tax repetition to be used to build 125,000 new affordable homes to get the economy moving.
	The Secretary of State referred to councils. We know that he is presiding over cuts to the local authority sector that are bigger than in any other part of the public sector and that the cuts are being unfairly applied. Councils need as much money as they can find to help, in part, to build homes. When the Secretary of State was asked about these cuts earlier this year in front of the departmental Select Committee, he said that in his view the cuts were “modest”. In private, however, it seems that his views are rather different. When it was reported last month that the Chancellor was looking for further cuts from certain Departments, including CLG, The Times said that
	“sources close to Mr Pickles”—
	[Interruption.] It certainly was not me. The Times said that
	“sources close to Mr Pickles made clear that he was not accepting the latest reductions, arguing that council services had already been cut to the bone.”
	It seems, therefore, that the Secretary of State’s private views are rather different from his public views. We are used to hearing Liberal Democrats say one thing to one audience and another thing to another, but I am surprised that the Secretary of State is also doing so.
	This is a familiar record. The Secretary of State, as the statistics show, is not very good at getting things done. It is not just me who thinks that; the Chancellor does, too. Apparently the Chancellor was in a fiery mood at the Cabinet meeting following the loss of the triple A credit rating and challenged Ministers about the poor rate of growth. The Daily Telegraph reported:
	“Eric Pickles, the Communities and Local Government Secretary, was given a ‘dressing down’ for failings in the Government’s flagship enterprise zone programme, according to sources.
	With less than a month until he unveils his Budget, the Chancellor criticised Mr Pickles over figures that show that one in three enterprise zones is failing to attract enough businesses. Mr Pickles is then said to have attempted to deflect the blame on to Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, by accusing him of failing to convince foreign businesses to invest in the schemes.”
	It is a very familiar story: Cabinet members are so busy fighting and blaming each other that it is no wonder that they cannot sort out the problems facing the country.
	The reforms to the national planning policy framework were supposed to streamline the planning system, but it seems that they have left councils less able to decide applications quickly. The national rate of decisions taken on major applications within 13 weeks has fallen from 62% in 2011 to 57% in 2012, and the same is true of minor applications determined within eight weeks, which are down from 72% to 69%, and the transition period is about to finish.
	The planning Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, said recently that he wants further relaxation of the planning laws. We would be very interested to hear what he has in mind.

Richard Graham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. May I confirm for him that the relaxation of planning laws introduced by the new planning Minister has been incredibly helpful to my constituents? It has ensured that work on three brownfield sites is now going ahead, which will be a great boon to the people of Gloucester.
	The right hon. Gentleman also made a point earlier about the Secretary of State’s problems with delivery. Given that the right hon. Gentleman agreed earlier with one of my Liberal Democrat friends that delivery was a problem for his party when it was in power, is it not better to focus on the Budget announcements and—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Graham, please keep interventions short. Sixty-one Members wish to get in and speak. If we are going to get on, we must have short interventions.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for agreeing that the Secretary of State is having problems with the delivery of housing. I have already indicated that we will support any measures that will help.
	Councils will have to make proper assessments of their housing need. On the Prime Minister’s announcement today on council and social housing and migration, the Secretary of State knows that people cannot just get off a plane and get a council house. He will be familiar, of course, with section 160A of the Housing Act 1996, and he will know that councils already have the power to put in place allocation schemes, because the previous Labour Government issued guidance in 2009 and an increasing number of them are doing so. It would be helpful if we could get clarity about precisely what is being proposed, given that the housing lead of the Local Government Association, Councillor Mike Jones, who is a Conservative, has queried the need for the guidance, and given that this morning’s papers reported that the Government plan to impose an expectation on councils. How exactly is it possible to impose an expectation on councils? [Interruption.] I say to the planning Minister that I have a little bit more experience of Government than him—and it shows.
	Ministers are looking to councils to identify housing need, but I say to them that the Growth and Infrastructure Bill will not assist councils in doing so, because clause 1 threatens to take away the power of local communities to decide whether housing is provided. The planning Minister, who is being very vocal, said that “vanishingly few” councils would be caught by that provision. However, to judge by the latest figures, as many as 21 local authorities could be stripped of their democratic accountability in taking decisions on housing planning applications if developers choose to go straight to the Planning Inspectorate.
	How does the planning Minister think that will assist communities to take responsibility for housing provision? All of us have to face up to the need to provide more homes. That is the point that he has been making. However, is it better to let developers decide where houses should be built or to allow communities to take that responsibility for themselves?
	I turn, finally, to one of the effects of what the Government are doing, which was not mentioned by the Chancellor in his speech on Wednesday. That is the effect that the decisions taken by the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will have on people on low incomes and their homes. So far in this debate, we have talked about the need to build
	homes so that people can move into them. I want to turn to the problem of people being forced out of their homes because of the Government’s bedroom tax and the Secretary of State’s poll tax.
	One consequence of what the Government are doing is likely to be rising rent arrears. That is exactly what councils and housing associations up and down the country are anticipating. Last week, the evidence from the universal credit pilot showed rising rent arrears. That is creating a lot of uncertainty, not least for housing associations. A number of them have had credit rating downgrades recently. If lenders think that housing associations will have difficulty collecting rent, it could put up their borrowing costs, which could impact on their balance sheets and their ability to borrow. Ultimately, it will affect their ability to build the homes that the Secretary of State says he wants to see. All of that will create huge challenges for families, councils and housing associations, not least because of the debt that people will get into.
	At the very time when the Chancellor has decided that the most important thing to do is to cut the top rate of tax, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has brought in his new poll tax and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has brought in the bedroom tax. What is so astonishing is that they are both singling out one group of people in our society. Whether they are working, seeking work or unable to work, the people who will be affected are those on the very lowest incomes, because that is why they get council tax benefit and housing benefit.
	Given that the fundamental problem in the country is a lack of growth in the economy—the Chancellor’s crowning failure—have Ministers paused for a second to consider what impact those two taxes will have on the economy? All the evidence shows that when people who are on low incomes have money, they tend to spend it. In Leeds, £9.4 million—[Interruption.] I know that the planning Minister, who is chuntering from a sedentary position, does not want to hear this, but the people on the lowest incomes in Leeds are going to lose £9.4 million that they do not have because of rent increases and council tax rises.
	Incredibly, last week the Secretary of State tried to blame local authorities for his policy, when he said that they
	“seek to persecute and to tax the poor.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 611.]
	That is extraordinary. The only person who is to blame is the Secretary of State. It is his legislation. He is the reason why bills are landing on people’s doorsteps that many of them will find hard to pay. Ministers know that people will do their best to stay in their own home—indeed, the Government’s assessment expects that to happen—because they want to stay with their friends, family and community.

Kate Green: Is my right hon. Friend interested in research just released by the Centre for Local Economic Strategies which shows that the Government’s welfare reforms, and the loss to family incomes, mean that on average 80% of money lost will be lost to the local economy as a result of reduced local shopping, reduced use of local transport, and reduced socialising?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the reforms will have a damaging economic impact and be bad for families who cannot afford it, although they will try to stay if they can because they value community, friends, neighbours and a sense of place. Ministers know that even if people downsize, there are not enough smaller properties for them to move into. That is why this is a tax: people cannot avoid it because they cannot move.

Yasmin Qureshi: On the bedroom tax, does my right hon. Friend agree that Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street are social housing? Will the occupants of those homes be moving out in light of the fact that—[Laughter.]

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is right on the first point, although I am not entirely sure that the occupants are claiming housing benefit. We wait to be informed.
	People with disabilities will be forced to move and the new home will have to be adapted all over again. Divorced dads who are trying to keep in contact with their children will be told that they have to pay the bedroom tax on the spare bedroom where they stay at the weekend, but as we know, some people will have no choice but to move. The final absurdity—the Chief Secretary should be interested in this—is that if people do move to the right sized property in the private rented sector, because of higher rents the housing benefit bill is likely to be bigger than that paid on the social home from which the family was forced out.

Andrew Stunell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Hilary Benn: I will conclude now, because many other Members want to speak. I have been generous in giving way but I want to finish on this point.
	Last Friday a constituent came to see me in my surgery. He is a man in his late 50s who has worked for the past 42 years, until last December when he became unwell. He currently has to live on £71 a week and has just received a council tax bill for £108.25. He is not sure how is going to pay it and he asked me—it is quite something when someone says this to a Member of Parliament, because we had not met before—“Can I tell you that I can no longer keep the heating on in my flat because it costs me £25 a week and I do not have the money to pay it?”
	The Chancellor, the Secretary of State and other Ministers are fond of telling us that we have to make really tough decisions, but I wonder how difficult it was to decide to give those on highest incomes a tax reduction at the beginning of next month, while imposing a reduction in council tax benefit and the bedroom tax on people. They are taking money from those who are poor—that is what we are talking about—and giving it to those who are rich. That is why they should scrap the cut to council tax benefit and get rid of the bedroom tax.
	The Secretary of State was full of his usual bravado and occasional bluster in what he had to say, but the cold hard reality of the collision of his policies with people’s lives shows that those policies are not well thought out and are incapable of being delivered. Because of that record, we have a promise of growth that has not
	materialised, a promise of localism that is not what it seems, and a promise of homes that have not been built. This Chancellor, this Secretary of State, and this Budget have nothing to offer the people of Britain.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I remind hon. Members that there is a limit of five minutes on speeches. If we could have short interventions, that would help to get everybody in.

David Ruffley: The Chancellor is a fiscal Conservative and monetary activist, and as such he eschewed shock and awe measures in this Budget, opting instead for sensible targeted relief that is welcome on this side of the House. Cuts to income tax mean that by 2015 a large number of income tax payers will receive a £700 cut compared with their tax bill of 2010. On child care, average two-child families with working mothers and fathers will get £2,400. Fuel duty has been frozen, and it is the longest freeze for two decades. The national insurance contribution cut of £2,000 is equivalent to someone just under average median earnings being taken on at no national insurance cost to an employer.
	I support the house building programme that we have heard about. As someone on the dry end of the Conservative party economically, I have heard the criticism that it is Fannie Mae all over again. People wonder whether there will be lots of defaults when the interest-free period runs out, and whether the policy could lead to higher house prices because of supply constraints. I am sure I will hear those concerns again, but the reality is that we need an injection of confidence into British households. There is no question but that the ability to get on the housing ladder, including the encouragement to spend money, because consumer spending frequently attends the purchase of a new house, is the kind of confidence that the British consumer wants at this stage of the economic cycle.

Oliver Colvile: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the key issue is the blockage in getting money to people and giving them the ability to borrow it in the first place? We expect our banks to ensure that they not only rebuild their balance sheets, but lend money and make it available.

David Ruffley: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point.
	There were no shock-and-awe measures in the Budget, because the Chancellor is probably right to believe that we are not approaching a lost Japanese decade. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the Office for Budget Responsibility growth projections; it forecasts growth of 2.3% in 2015, 2.7% in 2016 and 2.8% in 2017. The forecast turns on one central OBR assumption that might be wrong. The OBR assumes that there is quite a large negative output gap—that, in simple terms, there is a lot of slack in the economy. Forecasting or estimating the output gap is very difficult. If its assumption is wrong, and if the output gap is smaller than it says, a huge amount of the £120 billion a year last year and the coming year is structural rather than cyclical. If that is the case, we will
	need shock-and-awe measures—deeper cuts than those implied in the spending envelope and, yes, a fiscal stimulus in deeper tax cuts.

Angus MacNeil: On the one hand the hon. Gentleman calls for deeper cuts, but on the other hand, he spoke a few moments ago of the importance of consumer spending. In an earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said that 90% of the money for which those who are being penalised by the bedroom tax are responsible circulates locally. Surely if the Government take money out of the economy, we will see not consumer-led spending, but further contraction in the economy and further gaps.

David Ruffley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear the second part of my statement, when I mentioned deeper cuts in public spending and a fiscal stimulus with deeper tax cuts.
	If we do not have the growth we want in the economy in the next 12 or 18 months, I would like capital gains tax holidays of the kind suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), to get investment moneys circulating. I also believe there could be a case for deeper cuts in corporation tax to approximate more closely the Irish model; Ireland has 12.5% corporation tax, which makes it more of a magnet for foreign direct investment.
	That said, the Conservative party has indicated that it has the technology should we need to go further and faster in fiscal consolidation. The Conservative economic affairs committee, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, has discussed proposals from colleagues for a suspension of the carbon price. A key cost that is undoubtedly hampering business confidence is that, in 2011, about one fifth of the energy bill paid by small and medium-sized enterprises was attributable to green, renewable policies. Considering whether we want a holiday from that, and certainly not going further than European countries, would seem sensible.
	On Budget day, the Chancellor said two important things about monetary policy. First, he explicitly said that the Financial Policy Committee must co-ordinate better in future, under Mark Carney, with the Monetary Policy Committee. At the moment, the regulators are pulling in different directions. The MPC has pumped in £375 billion by printing electronic money in exchange for purchasing gilts from the commercial banks, but that credit is not flowing into the real economy. On the other hand, the Financial Services Authority, and its successor body the FPC, are telling the banks not to lend any of that money and to rebuild their capital position to de-leverage. Those two impulses fight against each other and it is entirely sensible for the Chancellor to say that the FPC and the MPC must co-ordinate better.
	Secondly, the Chancellor talked about forward policy guidance via thresholds to commit to looser monetary policy for a set period. That has had a good effect in Canada and the United States, and it will give British business the confidence that interest rates will not be jacked up just as the recovery begins and that economic activity will not be choked off.
	I support the Budget with qualifications.

Alistair Darling: I shall follow up shortly the points made by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) on the Bank of England, but first I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	The big problem we face at the moment is lack of growth. Here we are, five years since the crisis hit most western developed economies, yet contrary to what has happened in the past, there is absolutely no sign that growth will return to this country.

Richard Drax: One of the many reasons we do not have growth is that the Opposition made the country such a client state that we are indebted up to our eyeballs and there is no room for growth.

Alistair Darling: With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I anticipated that predictable nonsense. I am grateful to him for intervening, however, not least because he has given me another minute in which to make my case.
	As the Office for Budget Responsibility points out, the recession is taking far longer to come out of than any we have seen previously. The principal factor is that in 2007-08 we had a complete collapse of our GDP and that situation has not been recovered in the past five years. Frankly, on the evidence presented by the Chancellor last week, I see little evidence that it is going to happen. As a result, we are borrowing very large sums of money: £120 billion last year, this year and next year.
	As I was saying before the hon. Gentleman interrupted, in Chancellor’s forecasts, yet again in the back three years of the forecast period we see an expectation that growth will go from 2.7% to 2.8% in 2017. That is exactly the same profile that we have seen in each of the Chancellor’s Budgets and autumn statements. The problem is that these sunny uplands are moving to the right each time he stands up. I cannot for the life of me see why anything will be any different in 2017 from the bleak outlook we see today. The problem is that as long as we have low growth we will have high levels of borrowing, and debt is now expected to peak at 85% of our GDP. When we advocate a different approach, the Conservatives and the Liberals say that we are talking about borrowing more, but this Government are borrowing more than they ever imagined they would in 2010, and they are doing so not to invest in things such as infrastructure, but because of the price of their economic failure. That is what many of us have a problem with.

Angus MacNeil: Surely by boasting that he would cut harder and deeper than Thatcher, the right hon. Gentleman set the tone for the cult of austerity that we are now living through.

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but not in the way he intended, because that is nonsense too. Incidentally, in the leaked document from John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, the Scottish Government too faced up to some difficult decisions. The difference is that I and—to give them credit—the coalition Government were open about the difficulties we faced, whereas the Scottish National party wanted to keep them secret from the Scottish people.
	It seems that the Chancellor has given up on doing anything. As I said last week, we are in the middle of a lost decade—it happened to Japan and it is happening to us now—and there is no sign that the Government have any idea how to get out of it. The Government’s Budget response on infrastructure is fine, but it does not come along for two or three years. On housing, I agreed with everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the shadow Secretary of State, said. The problem is that last week’s announcement is more likely to create yet another housing bubble by driving up asset prices. Indeed, some of it might even sow the seeds that gave rise to the sub-prime mortgage problem we saw in the United States, because we are suffering from an acute lack of housing in just about every town and city in the country.
	I was encouraged by what the planning Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), said over the summer. Unless we break through this logjam and get more housing built, prices will go up and up and people will face the same difficulties they did in the past. The irony is that we are not prepared to build houses, but we are prepared, it seems, to finance the inflation of a bubble in housing prices. That is absolutely the wrong thing to do. The bedroom tax illustrates the problem; there simply are not the houses for people whose income is being cut to move to. That illustrates the need to improve our housing infrastructure, although the problem applies to transport and energy as well. I do not object to some measures in the Budget, but nothing in it is likely to get our economy going.
	The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds referred to the Bank of England and said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had effectively said, “I can’t do anything further in fiscal terms. It’s all up to the Bank of England now.” Most Members have warmly welcomed the appointment of Mark Carney. I think he will be a very good Governor, but with the best will in the world we cannot expect him to do everything the Government are supposed to be doing. It is useful that we can tell the markets what we think will happen to interest rates. I suspect that most people do not expect them to rise for the next two or three years, although they might rise in the United States, given that the US Government are following a different policy from that being followed here and in Europe.
	I do not think, however, that the sort of measures the Chancellor has in mind and which the new Governor might announce in relation to forward guidance will do the trick and get our economy going. I have said before that quantitative easing has played its role and stabilised the banking system—I have supported what has been done so far—but there is little evidence of what additional QE would do for our economy. The risk is that the money simply goes into the bank vaults, not into the wider economy. The Bank will play its part, but monetary policy and fiscal policy have to be complementary, otherwise they simply will not work.
	Time does not allow me to mention the eurozone, other than to say that the last week has confirmed my suspicion that the eurozone is almost psychologically incapable of sorting out its problems. Unless it does so, it will hold back growth not only in this country, but elsewhere. At the same time, I am committed to this country remaining part of the European Union—that
	is very important—although we need to use our influence. Governments can make a difference. In 2008-09, through the G20, Governments from across the world, from communist China to the Republican-led United States, came together and we did what was necessary to support our economies. And guess what? Our economy was growing in 2010. Look at it now.

Andrew Stunell: I am delighted to take part in this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling). Some of his remarks would have had more bite if he had not left us borrowing £428 million every day of 2010. It is a credit to this coalition Government that that figure has been substantially reduced.
	As the first Liberal Democrat speaking in this debate, I would not be doing my duty if I did not praise the Chancellor for the decision to raise the income tax threshold to £10,000. This is a long sought-after victory, which I very much welcome, which will see 2.5 million taxpayers—many of them low-paid women—taken out of tax and 20 million taxpayers getting a £700 smaller tax bill than they did under Labour.
	I want to use my time primarily to talk about two measures that appear on page 40 of the Red Book. The first is the major step forward announced on zero-carbon homes and the achievement of the target in 2016, which appears in paragraph 1.109. I am delighted to see that. I am delighted, too, to see that the intention is now to increase the standard of energy efficiency of new buildings from October this year. I very much look forward to the announcement by the Department for Communities and Local Government, which is prefigured in the Red Book. I also very much welcome the statement that a decision on allowable solutions will be taken by the summer; the construction industry is certainly ready for this measure. The Zero Carbon Hub has done the preparatory work and the Green Building Council has been pressing for it. I would like to think that the decision reported in the Red Book is at least in part a response to what they have said and to early-day motion 1004, which covers the same ground.
	I asked the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Question Time last November whether the Government still intended to be the greenest Government ever. I was pleased that he replied emphatically, “Yes”. I was even more pleased when, in a speech to the Royal Society on 4 February, he reiterated the Government’s commitment. I want to say to the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government that, given the Prime Minister’s support, there can be no excuse for delay. We need an urgent decision on the carbon price for offsite generation for zero-carbon homes. The Red Book says that the decision will be taken by the Department for Communities and Local Government. I am sure that the DCLG and Her Majesty’s Treasury can sort out their respective responsibilities, but can we ensure that there is no delay in taking that decision?
	The second point I want to bring to the House’s attention is the excellent news of more investment in homes for rent, with £225 million and 15,000 starts planned before 2015. That comes on top of 170,000 new homes planned for rent and 150,000 decent homes brought up to standard. There are many positive features to our housing programme. Like everybody else in the
	Chamber, I wish it was going further and faster, but I do not believe we should listen for a moment to the shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and his complaints, when his Administration reduced the stock of affordable homes by 420,000 and sold so many homes without having a replacement policy—a policy that Labour itself now admits was a failure. I welcome these housing measures in the Budget, but there is still much more to do to improve the quality of our 20 million existing homes and to build the many more we need to the highest environmental standards. I look forward to the coalition making yet more progress in the remaining two and a half years before the general election.

Jim Cunningham: Listening to Government Members this evening, one would think that there was no economic situation in 2008, but in fact it started in America because of the irresponsibility of the bankers—not only in this country, but in America. It is also worth reminding the House, when the Government try to blame those on the Labour Benches, that in his last four or five weeks as President, George Bush pumped billions into the American economy, because he realised right away that the fault lay with the American banks.
	I remind Members, too, of the catastrophe associated with Lehman Brothers, with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example. We need to remind the Government of those aspects because the Government were very light, to say the least, when it came to dealing with the bankers who caused the problem in the first place. What they have tried to do is to blame the previous Government for things that they never understood at the time. I remember that when we were in government, their solution to the problem was “Oh, well, we have too much red tape and we must cut it”. I do not remember any Members now on the Government Benches providing any solutions whatever at the time, yet they are pretty good at coming here and trying to blame us for a situation that their friends, the bankers, caused in the first place.

Mike Thornton: Under whose regulatory system did those failures take place?

Jim Cunningham: It was the previous Conservative Government, and that has never been acknowledged, so the hon. Gentleman should not rewrite history.
	Another interesting aspect of the present economic situation is that local government has taken the brunt—33.3%—of the cuts. People talk about growth, without realising that it is only through local government that growth will happen. It is worth noting that in the west midlands, for example, unemployment is probably the highest in the country with about 8.5% unemployed, while for young people up and down the country it is as high as 21%. Given those levels of youth unemployment over which this Chancellor is presiding, I think it is offensive when he talks about aspiration and the aspiration nation. The UK has the third worst level of youth unemployment in the developed world; of the OECD countries, only Spain and Greece have higher levels. Since the recession started, the UK has experienced the fastest rise in youth unemployment of the G8 countries.
	Speaking about aspiration, the Chancellor is dividing people into “aspirants” who aspire to prosperity and others. It is as though he does not know or does not care that there is a national lack of job opportunities available to young people. It is simply disgraceful for the Chancellor to talk about aspiration when one in five young people leaving school might not find work. The Government need an extensive programme to create jobs for young people and should support them in finding those jobs and training them.
	Let me deal with manufacturing. I have often spoken about the west midlands and its success in manufacturing, and I strongly believe that the manufacturing sector can drive local economies and boost growth. I was therefore alarmed at the Budget’s lack of discussion of manufacturing industry. The Chancellor’s only mention of it was his claim that for the first time in 40 years we are manufacturing for export more cars than we import. Well, that started under the Labour Government and certainly not under the present Government. The Government try to take the credit for the success of Jaguar Land Rover, but Labour Members know that the previous Labour Government supported that industry.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to congratulate his old friend on these green Benches—Alex Salmond—on presiding over youth unemployment in Scotland that is at a 20-year low, recently going down from 25% to 17%?

Jim Cunningham: Obviously, I—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am not sure that we need to be dragged around the Scottish Parliament and Scottish leaders. This is supposed to be a Budget debate, and I do not see a true connection.

Jim Cunningham: I will accept your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	Why was there nothing in the Budget about manufacturing green technology? If that was the Budget’s intention, it could hardly be any less green than it is. This Government launch initiatives, but then seem to forget them. In 2001, the Chancellor of the Exchequer pledged that 100,000 people would be able to buy their own home; 18 months later, only 1,500 had done so. I hope that this will not be the fate of the schemes announced in last week’s Budget, too.
	Public sector workers have had yet another 1% pay cut levied on them. As I understand the Chancellor’s Budget statement, this will probably last until 2015. I believe that 1.4 million public sector workers, including nurses, paramedics, midwives and prison staff, are affected by that policy. Those jobs are spread out across the country rather than being just London-based. Rather than cutting those people’s pay by 1%, putting more money in the pockets of these workers would be an excellent way to stimulate demand across the country. Instead, the Government are stifling those workers’ spending ability. Furthermore, a high proportion of women in the public sector will be affected. I fear that the Government’s approach will hurt working women disproportionately. It certainly does not encourage aspiration.
	Cuts in funding for Coventry city council will hit the most vulnerable people in the city. The council’s community services director must make a third of its £63 million
	budget cuts by 2016. Last week cuts of £6 million were announced, which will mean the closure of day care centres used by hundreds of elderly and disabled people, the axing of subsidies for transport to day centres, the ending of housing-with-care bedsit schemes for the vulnerable, and the cutting of housing-related support that is currently provided for the elderly and disabled. Roughly 160 carers are expected to lose their jobs. It is predicted that thousands of elderly people will be affected, as well as people with learning disabilities, Alzheimer’s and mental health problems.
	We should judge our society according to how we treat the most vulnerable, the old, the sick and the young, not according to how we treat our millionaires. We are failing fast, and this Budget will do nothing to help those people.

Alun Cairns: In the limited time available to me, I intend to explain why I welcome the measures in the Budget, and also why I consider the views of Opposition Members to be highly inconsistent.
	Given the lack of growth in our largest trading nations, it is easy to understand why the Chancellor was left with so little room for manoeuvre. After all, growth projections in Germany and the United States—just two examples—have been downgraded. We need to recognise the context of the present position: the scale of debt inherited in 2010, the major issues that confront the eurozone, the local impact of the high prices of commodities such as oil, gas and food and the inflationary pressures that that involves, and the lack of growth in other nations.

Oliver Colvile: Did not the last Labour Government create a structural budget deficit as long ago as 2001?

Alun Cairns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall say more about Labour’s inconsistency later.
	All the issues I have mentioned have had impacts on the living standards of families throughout the United Kingdom. Decisions such as these are difficult to take, but they must be seen in context.
	What I welcome most is the Chancellor’s drive to create the most competitive of economic environments. That will attract investment, and will also continue to encourage the private sector in the UK to invest. The further reduction in corporation tax goes to the heart of a sustained economic recovery, and underlines the economic imbalance that we inherited. The 20% corporation tax rate means that we now compare exceptionally well with our major competitors. In Germany the rate is 29%, in France it is 33%, and in Italy it is 31%. Those are material considerations for anyone who is thinking about where to invest, and for any United Kingdom investor who is thinking of expanding. We should also bear in mind the uncompetitive position that we inherited. The increase in employers’ national insurance rates led to the term “jobs tax”, with which we are now familiar.
	The ultimate judgment will come in the grades that the World Economic Forum confers on the competitiveness of the various nations. Having ranked fourth in 1997, we were dragged down to 13th by the Labour party. At last, however, we have recovered enough to rank eighth—and that happened before the announcement
	of the welcome changes in the Budget. Neither the 20% corporation tax rate nor the employers’ national insurance relief were taken into account.
	Other Budget measures that I welcome include the “help to buy” mortgage guarantee schemes. That is an area of policy in which no Government would ideally become involved. However, bearing in mind the context I referred to earlier, the Chancellor had little choice other than to get involved. The scheme will provide a welcome boost to the construction and retail industries and various elements of the service sector, and it will make a significant difference to many families who want to buy their own home.

Wayne David: On “help to buy”, does the hon. Gentleman think it morally correct that millionaires can get support to buy second homes?

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman recognises, I hope, that the economy needs to be kick-started. He always refers to the changes to the highest income tax rates and the 5% reduction that will take place next week. However, I remind him that the rate Labour introduced was temporary. If so, when was Labour planning to abandon it? The ultimate question that Labour Members have to answer is, will they reintroduce for the next general election the 50% rate that was in their manifesto? I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to intervene again. Obviously, he does not, because they are not prepared to say whether they will commit to doing that.
	I am pleased that the homebuy scheme will be limited to three years because as I said, it is not a policy area that any Government would want to be involved with in perpetuity, because of some of the risks that have been highlighted. It simply is not a public sector initiative that any Government would want to undertake all the time.
	If those who want to criticise such initiatives are to have any credibility, they need to offer some form of alternative. It is hard to believe the audacity shown by some Labour Members. Less than three years ago, they were responsible for, or were the loudest cheerleaders for, the policies that led us into this position, giving this country the most debt-ridden, overspent, unbalanced economy in modern history. Manufacturing had declined by more than 20%, public sector job numbers had ballooned and we had the highest debt level of any G20 nation. I notice that the Labour Members who were seeking to intervene and criticise earlier are now staring at their boots.
	These initiatives are aimed at promoting growth and freezing or cutting spending. [Interruption.] The Labour critics really need to come up with some alternatives. Until they have accepted their responsibility, they will lack credibility and no one will listen. Even Lord Mandelson recognised that just last week. They came up with some sort of plans in the past. Spending the 4G auction money on 100,000 new affordable homes was one option; a two-year freeze on stamp duty was another. However, that money has already been used—on the national debt—so I look forward to hearing their alternatives.
	This Budget will make a difference to families, and help to kick-start the housing sector and to make Britain’s economy much more competitive. I look forward to hearing the solutions that Labour Members will try—

Nigel Evans: Order. I call Brian Donohoe.

Brian H Donohoe: I became a Member of this House in 1992, and I have to say that this is the worst Budget I can remember—that is, since last year’s omnishambles of the pasty tax and the caravan tax. It will do nothing to reverse the decline of the economy, nothing for jobs, nothing for taxpayers and nothing for those forced on to benefits by this Government’s policies. The February unemployment figures show that any decline in unemployment during the previous three-month period is now faltering.
	In my constituency, the picture is bleak. There has been an increase in unemployment, including among those aged over 50, and the number of people on jobseeker’s allowance for more than 12 months has also increased. Those in their 50s, in particular, will suffer when they retire because they will be unable to build up an occupational pension and will have to rely on the state pension.
	I recently visited one of my constituency’s Work programme providers. Advisers there told me that most of the jobs they were helping people into were part time and paid the minimum wage, involving basic skills and offering limited prospects. However, the bigger problem is that the number of people who have been unable to find work after 12 months has grown by more than a third during the past year.
	The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is in his place, might be interested to hear about the effects of the Government’s policy on excise duty. The Chancellor has knocked a penny off a pint of beer, and he made a big deal of it. When I heard about that, I thought back to the days of Denis Healey, when a penny off a pint meant something. Today, it is the equivalent of 0.2% or 0.3% off the cost of a pint. In other words, someone would have to buy 200 to 300 pints to get an extra pint for their money, so it is hardly going to have a huge impact on the pub trade.
	As far as I am aware, there are no wine producers in my constituency—although there are some who brew at home—but Scotch whisky is a major industry, as it is for the UK as a whole. It is worth £4 billion a year and employs more than 35,000 people across Scotland, yet the Chief Secretary and his Treasury cohorts have done nothing whatsoever to support it. When I entered Parliament in 1992, the average price of a bottle of Scotch was £10.42, of which VAT and excise duty accounted for 68%. The average price after this Budget will be £12.89, of which VAT and excise duty will account for 78%. In other words, since 1992 the price of a bottle of Scotch has increased by £2.47, but the amount of VAT and excise duty has increased by £2.95. The industry is therefore producing whisky more cheaply, yet the customer has to pay more. The beer industry complains about this issue, but imagine the uproar if it had to bear the same tax burden as the Scotch whisky industry has to bear.
	The Chancellor has responded to public pressure on fuel duty, but has totally ignored air passenger duty. The aviation and tourist industries have complained—as has the travelling public, in mass numbers—about this unfair penalty on those who want to travel.

Angus MacNeil: It is reputed to be the world’s most onerous tax on air travel, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is damaging Scottish airports terribly.

Brian H Donohoe: I do agree with the hon. Gentleman on this occasion; it is not very often I can say that. The Government are doing absolutely nothing for air passengers, the aviation industry and those who work in it. They continue with this tax, while our competitors throughout the world are laughing at us. The Government are prepared to examine other measures, but not the tax that affects not only my constituency but others throughout the United Kingdom.
	The Chancellor says that he wants to boost house building, but how is the bedroom tax going to help to do that? Surely it will add to the confusion about the sort of housing stock we require. I predict that it will be worse than the poll tax for people in my constituency; indeed, I am already seeing signs of that. It will prove to be the Government’s Achilles heel, just as the poll tax was for Margaret Thatcher.
	Future growth forecasts have had to be revised, and the Office for Budget Responsibility says that in 2015 most people will be worse off. All in all, the Budget offers the British people nothing other than more of the same failed policies of the last three years. The approach simply is not working, and the Government should own up to that and change tack today, for the sake of the UK economy as a whole.
	Reflecting on it, this is the worst Budget I have witnessed since being elected in 1992.

Alok Sharma: I welcome this responsible Budget, which targets help to individuals and businesses intelligently. Our time is short, so I wish to focus on three points: personal allowances, the employment allowance and exports.
	Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), I welcome the raising of personal allowances to £10,000. That is being delivered by a Conservative Chancellor and, as a result, more than 42,000 people in my constituency will be paying less tax and more than 4,000 will be taken out of paying tax altogether. Before the Budget, I suggested to the Treasury that we set an aspiration for future years that nobody on the minimum wage should pay income tax. I know that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is not in his place, shares that aspiration. It will take some years to deliver and it will be an expensive measure, but it is fair and it is the right thing to do. I hope that aspiration will be set and I hope it will be in the 2015 Conservative manifesto.
	Small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency welcome the employment allowance, which is a big boost to job creation. The private sector is the engine of growth, and Reading, the town I represent, is an economic powerhouse in the south-east. No matter what the Opposition may say, the private sector is creating jobs. This morning, I met the chief executive of Huawei, a Chinese IT and telecoms group, which is opening its head office in my constituency in the next few months. It is bringing hundreds of new jobs to Reading and creating several hundred more over the next few years.
	In the past few weeks, Tesco has confirmed that it is starting recruitment at a new distribution centre in my constituency, and I am pleased that this brownfield redevelopment is taking place. I have been discussing it with Tesco and its advisers since 2011, and it means more than 1,000 new jobs in my constituency.
	A couple of months ago, I met Ross Snape, the chief executive officer of United Asphalt, a successful independent business located in Theale in my constituency. He said:
	“All too often we hear politicians and the press talking down the economy, which can have really negative effects on business and the decisions we make on investment and employing people…it is time to move on and face the challenges we have with confidence.”
	I could not agree more. Many billions of pounds have been sitting on UK corporate balance sheets as deleveraging has been going on, but businesses based in my constituency have decided that it is now time to invest. They realise there are no easy fixes to the economy because of the problems that had built up.

James Morris: My hon. Friend is giving good local examples of job creation. Does he agree that as the Budget contains one of the proposals relating to the single pot of funding, a recommendation of the Heseltine review, his local area will be helped to develop even further?

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that proposal, which will help not only my local area, but other areas. It also advances the whole aspect of localism, on which this Government are very keen, as I am. As I was saying, companies in my constituency have decided that it is time to start investing, and I hope that many others up and down the country will follow suit.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman says that some companies are starting to invest, but is that not related to what Keynes and, latterly, Paul Krugman have said: in the absence of government doing anything substantial, recessions will sort themselves out in the end, but years of unnecessary pain will have been experienced by many people because of government inaction or wrong policies?

Alok Sharma: Thanks to the measures taken by this Government, the deficit is coming down, we have record employment and interest rates are at record lows. I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would welcome all those things, just as businesses in my constituency do.
	The Chancellor made the point in his Budget statement that for the first time in more than two decades we are exporting more goods to non-EU countries than to EU ones, and I welcome that. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), for whom I have huge respect, said that there is no growth, but, as he well knows, there is growth; we are expanding our exports to some of the world’s key economies, which is a result of the policies that this Government have put in place and of the good work being done by UK Trade & Investment and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
	Small and medium-sized businesses still tell us that there is a fear factor when they are looking to enter new markets. UKTI and the FCO have been great at targeting high-growth nations and opening new offices, but we
	need to turbo-charge that expansion. We need not only to target three, four or five cities in these huge economies such as India and Indonesia, but to go into the 15 or 20 top tier 1 and tier 2 cities. In those economies it is not only the national Governments who make decisions; the state governments make many of the big decisions on investment, which is why we need to turbo-charge our approach and get these offices across these countries quickly. The Government, together with UKTI, should provide practical help by taking on office space in these key cities, basing sector experts from the UK Government and UKTI there, and working with local enterprise partnerships to get out there and allow SMEs low-cost desk and office space for three, six or 12 months. The synergies that will be created as a result of all these companies coming together in one location, with sector focus and where we can also get local advisers involved, will do a huge amount to boost our exports. We want to go from having one in five SMEs exporting to having one in four, which is the European average. That will add billions of GDP to our economy. UKTI is doing a great job with the headstart scheme, but we need to build on such initiatives.
	The final point I wish to make is about the local Labour party in Reading—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am not sure that this is totally relevant to the Budget, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to stray from what the good people of Reading want to hear about the Budget.

Alok Sharma: Of course not, Mr Deputy Speaker. What I wanted to say was about jobs. We have really good news coming out of Reading, but I never hear people from the local Labour party welcoming new jobs or celebrating business success. They do not do good news. They are anti-aspiration and anti-business, very much like many of the Opposition Members who have spoken in these Budget debates. Let me tell hon. Members what Geoff Foley in my constituency says about Labour Reading council:
	“Reading Borough Council do not really give a thought to local businesses”—

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that Reading borough council knows exactly what it is talking about, but I am not sure that this is relevant to today’s Budget debate. I am being very generous and I think we are going to run out of time, so one quick mention of Reading without the Labour party would be helpful.

Alok Sharma: Let me conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, by commending this Budget and urging everyone to support it.

Geoffrey Robinson: May I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?
	I listened attentively to the Budget statement and tried to hear something that was positive, not just for exports, but for manufacturing, for business and for productive industries. There were just two things that we, of course, welcome: the £2,000 off national insurance contributions and the increase to 10% of the research
	and development credits for those investing, which I am pleased to say several companies in my constituency have already welcomed. The trouble is that those two things pale into insignificance when we look at the scale of the problem we face; they just are not going to tackle it.
	The problem can best be measured by looking at the plan from 2010 and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts attached to it. Two crucial elements were going to support that plan and those forecasts. I recall saying in the debates that followed that they seemed to be the two most solid pillars on which the Government were building, but that, as far I could see, there was nothing underneath to support them or the OBR’s very optimistic forecasts. Those two elements were: manufacturing exports—exports on the visible account; and the increase in output from manufacturing. We were told to expect a 10%—I believe the figure given was 9.8%—increase in output from the business sector, but what have we had in the two years to the end of 2012? An increase of less than 5%—barely half what was projected. The hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) said that we are doing well on exports—I am not sure whether we were more interested in exports or Reading—but compared with what was projected and with what we need the outcome in those two years has been terrible. I believe that the projected figure was 6% and we achieved minus 0.3% to December last year in the value and volume of exports.
	I am not saying it is easy, but one thing I am sure about is that either the OBR has no idea about forecasts or we need to reconsider the OBR model, as it continually gets everything so wrong. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), the former Chancellor, was kind enough to say that he thought the estimates were optimistic—that the sunny uplands kept moving to the right and that the further out the OBR went, the more optimistic it became, but that was the case from the very beginning and nothing has changed. We should now be in those sunlit uplands. I do not understand why the OBR, with its much-vaunted independence, continues to get things so hopelessly wrong. Somebody needs to rethink that model. It is not enough to take responsibility out of the Treasury and pop it somewhere down Victoria street—one should not think that that will put everything right. There we are; that is one problem.
	One part of the Budget that I thought might lead to some positive movement concerned the construction industry and the house building sector in particular. In an intervention on the Secretary of State, I welcomed the Firstbuy initiative, and a development on the old Jaguar site in Coventry has made quite a contribution, but the extension of the mortgage scheme, which is much bigger, is—yet again—a measure that has not been thought through. The problem with this Government is that they are totally incapable of thinking anything through. They should not be consulting on whether millionaires can have subsidised mortgages for second homes. That should have been ruled out in principle right from the beginning, before the consultation began. Many things require consultation, but not that. I cannot imagine why it was left in as an option—well, I can; things were not thought through.
	We are in real need with housing starts down 11%, 70,000 construction workers unemployed and the lowest house building programme since the ’20s. That is the scale of the problem and such tiny measures show that the Government are fiddling around the edges—fiddling while Rome burns, as it were. Central to it all is the attitude of the Treasury and the Chancellor. If the Chancellor has lost self-confidence to such an extent that it impacts on confidence in the business community and consumers in the UK, he must consider whether he any longer has the vision, courage and self-confidence—whether he ever had those things is, of course, another question—to do what is necessary and change course.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson). I think it was the late Harold Macmillan who talked about economists telling people this and that, and about statistics. However, there are some realities in this Budget, which other Members have referred to, and I will also do so in terms of the impact on my constituency.
	Let me begin with the general point about the £10,000 income tax threshold for next year. That is reality; that is not statistical. It means that next year, 4,000 individuals in my constituency will not be paying tax. More important for hon. Members to understand is the fact that the average total family income across Lancashire is approximately £26,600, and next year those people will pay no tax on their first £10,000 of income. To me, that is a huge selling point in increasing confidence. People will be able to go out to work and the Government will promise that we will not touch the first £10,000. It seems remarkable that we are in such a state that we can say that that is marvellous, but compared with what has gone on before it is extremely good news for constituents across Lancaster and Fleetwood.
	Fuel duty has been frozen. In a huge rural area such as my constituency, where people have no choice, whatever their income, but to be dependent on their car to travel to work and to the shops, the ending of Labour’s plans to increase fuel duty provides massive support for the local economy.
	There is the new employment allowance. Most businesses in my area are small, made up of two or three—if not six—people. The national insurance promises in the Budget will be a massive fillip to new employment and to encouraging people to get out there, set up their own business and start moving with the support of this Government.
	Hon. Members will bear with me while I discuss a local theme that they would expect me to mention: shale gas. Many hon. Members have looked at shale gas as the great nirvana and something that will fill the energy gap, but that will affect Lancashire. Let me underline yet again that we in Lancashire are still not satisfied that the regulatory regime is right. We welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to an office for unconventional gas and the tightening up of those regulations, but people in Lancashire need to see that the regulations are thorough and tight. Given that farmers still take water directly from the water table through boreholes, Members will be able to imagine the worries in parts of my constituency.
	More important than that is the question of who will earn money from shale gas. Lancashire people are quite generous, like me, in their commitment—[Interruption.] Well, we are far more generous than the people from the other side of the Pennines. We are generous in our commitment to the United Kingdom and in our willingness to support it, but as the law stands, the people who own the land, including the farmers on whose land this fracking might—I still say might—take place will earn precious little from it.

Angus MacNeil: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating an equivalent to a sovereign wealth fund for Lancashire? That was the source of the reason why all Norwegians feel they own the oil; is there a similar feeling in Lancashire towards this gas?

Eric Ollerenshaw: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me and for once—in fact, not for the first time—we agree. If Lancashire is to be used to fill the energy gap and if Lancashire will see fracking across the county, we need to understand that it is not Texas and landowners in Lancashire do not own the mineral rights. The Chancellor will gain through the tax system, companies will gain through their profits and, presumably, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Crown Estate will gain through the tax on mineral rights, but the local councils will gain precious little. I was pleased that the Chancellor said in his Budget that there would be specific proposals to allow local communities to benefit, but I tell the Ministers on the Front Bench that Lancashire expects more than one or two parish hall roofs to be fixed. We want to see something that will return money to Lancashire when the gas has been fracked, if that fracking is to go ahead. I need to make that clear.
	Finally, on infrastructure, hon. Members talked about growth. For me, the key point was the Chancellor’s phrase about “clearing the economic arteries”. In the north-west, that means something substantial and we have had that from this Government. We have had the biggest investment in rail for the last 30, 40 or 50 years. It was all right Opposition Members saying that that would happen in future—it is happening now. I point to my own station in Lancaster, where £8.5 million is already being spent to vary the signalling so that trains can turn around in Lancaster and more platforms can be used. That is the small-scale work. Only last week, the Department for Transport finally agreed the M6 link road, which will be a bypass for Lancaster to the port of Heysham. It will bring thousands of jobs through a scheme for which the first plans were produced in 1948—that is perhaps a lesson to us all. It has taken this coalition Government to agree the money to get things moving and get the growth.
	As the Secretary of State mentioned, there is still a great deal more for local councils to do. I am pleased that the Conservative councils in my area, Wyre borough council and Lancashire county council, have kept the council tax frozen. Not only that, but Lancashire has cut it by 2%—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Anas Sarwar: The Budget the Chancellor delivered was not the Budget that my constituents or the city of Glasgow needed. The Budget
	Glasgow needs is one that gets the economy moving, helps people back into work and looks after the most vulnerable in our society. Instead, the Government are willing to give millionaires a £40,000 tax cut at the same time as 17,000 Glaswegians will have to cope with the impact of the bedroom tax. Thousands more will have to mitigate the damage to their family budget of the cuts to child tax credits, cuts to working tax credits and drastic cuts to the local services that many people rely upon. Wages are falling, jobs are being lost, household budgets are being squeezed and there is still no sign of a rethink. Just when will the Chancellor wake up and smell the Starbucks coffee?

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Anas Sarwar: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has made many interventions, so let us hope that this one is sensible.

Angus MacNeil: Is the hon. Gentleman not disappointed, and should he not be ashamed, that he supports a Westminster Government over independence, so we have the bedroom tax imposed on Scotland? If he supported independence, we would not have the bedroom tax in Scotland at the moment.

Anas Sarwar: That shows us the myth of the Scottish National party. The hon. Gentleman says that the only way to stop the bedroom tax is independence; the bedroom tax will be introduced on 1 April 2013, but according to the SNP timetable, independence day will be 31 March 2016. Members can work it out for themselves.
	Plan A clearly is not working. For some time, the Opposition have been calling for additional infrastructure investment to boost the construction sector and we have been urging the Government to act. The Chancellor could have used the funds from the 4G auction to build 100,000 affordable homes, stimulate the economy and help tackle the housing crisis, but instead he decided that public services and public sector workers should bear the burden. Not content with imposing a 1% pay freeze until 2015, he has extended it to 2016. Given the rate of inflation, that is an effective pay cut for hundreds of thousands of people across the country.
	With 80,000 construction workers out of work, construction output has fallen by 8.2%. The Government announced an extra £225 million for affordable housing, but only £125 million of that will be spent before 2015 according to the OBR, and it is dwarfed by the £4 billion cut in funding for affordable housing that the Chancellor made in his first Budget. Even after that investment the coalition Government’s record will still be a cut of around £10 billion in infrastructure projects.
	It says everything about the Government’s attitude that they cut real-terms pay for millions of public sector workers, while giving the green light to slash corporation tax for big business. Research by the House of Commons Library, published today, confirms that the reductions in corporation tax will cost £29 billion in total, £10 billion over the life of the current Parliament alone. That policy enjoys the full support of the Scottish nationalists, who want to see a future independent Scotland at the front of a race to the bottom, a low tax country with an economy like Iceland—or perhaps like
	Ireland. I have not seen the latest Scottish Government press release, so I do not know which country they are modelling their assessment on this week.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Am I right in assuming that the hon. Gentleman favours a high-tax economy for Britain?

Anas Sarwar: No, I am suggesting that while people across the country—especially the most vulnerable—see their household income slashed and the poorest people are having to live in more difficult circumstances, the Government see their priority as giving millionaires a tax cut and cutting taxes for the biggest businesses in the country. I know whose side I am on. I am sad to say that I know whose side the hon. Gentleman is on, and I am sure people will punish him appropriately come the next general election.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Anas Sarwar: I have given way twice already, but if I have any spare time at the end of my speech I might let the hon. Gentleman entertain the House.
	The Chancellor claimed the Budget showed he was on the side of people who want to get on; instead it has shown just how out of touch this Government really are. The low-paid workers the Government say will pay less income tax will still be worse off at the end of the month, when that saving is clawed back many times over—clawed back through VAT, clawed back through cuts to tax credits and clawed back from thousands of my constituents through the scandalous bedroom tax.
	Yes, the Liberal Democrats can celebrate lifting the threshold to £10,000, but household income for many families in that bracket will fall as a result of the Government’s measures. At the same time, the value of an average worker’s pay has fallen by more than £1,000 and persistently high inflation continues.
	In these difficult economic times, the Chancellor should certainly accept our proposals for the funding for lending scheme to be enhanced to target small and medium-sized enterprises better by rewarding banks that expand SME lending regardless of their mortgage book. Now is the time when our banks should be supporting SMEs, not hitting them harder. Throughout my constituency, whether I am speaking to small or large businesses, they all make the same complaint: the banking sector is holding back investment in this country, not promoting it. If we can get our banks lending again and get people investing, we will get more people back to work and see growth and regeneration in some of the hardest-hit communities.
	The Chancellor should seriously explore our proposals for new regional banks that are committed to their regions and in touch with local business, making it easier for firms to secure the capital investment they require to create the growth and jobs Britain needs. Sadly, my constituents continue to suffer, trapped between this coalition Government, who continue to look out for the wrong people, and a Holyrood Government, who are distracted by their referendum obsession and happy to double Tory cuts and pass them on to local government, washing their hands of all responsibility
	and removing £250 million from Glasgow’s economy. We heard earlier from one of the SNP Members that we should recognise that the fall in unemployment was thanks to action taken by the Scottish Government. It is amazing that when unemployment goes up, it is all Westminster’s fault but when it goes down it is all thanks to the Scottish Government. It cannot be both.
	The reason why I and countless others in the House went into politics was to help build stronger communities, not to use the poorest and most vulnerable people as electoral or political dividing lines, writing off millions of people as a drain on the economy for electoral advantage. We want to help to create a sustainable economy to fund world-class public services, ensure that society’s resources are distributed equitably and protect the most vulnerable people in our communities.
	Last Wednesday I sat and listened to the Chancellor lay out his vision for the coming years. It is a vision that I and, I am confident, the majority of people in Britain reject.

Mike Thornton: I want to talk about three things: mortgages and how we support them, how local authorities can help and what can be done on commercial lending.
	We should strip out all the fancy schemes. I talked to some of the people I used to work with at Simply Finance, and apparently there are about 100 viable 90% loan-to-value schemes. The situation is not quite as bad as it was in the past, but the credit-scoring system for those mortgages tends to be so severe that only about 10% of applicants ever get a mortgage. My only concern about our new scheme is that we should make absolutely sure that it results in people being able to borrow money, rather than having their application turned down. The Opposition believe that the scheme will provide second homes for millionaires. I agree with the Secretary of State that that can be sorted out easily.
	If mortgage schemes work, they increase demand, but if demand goes up without an increase in supply, prices will increase. I am sure that is not the intention. We need to develop and build houses. To ensure appropriate development while protecting our country’s green spaces, we must innovate. At Eastleigh borough council we work with developers to purchase properties that would not otherwise be bought. We then rent them out. It would be a real help if the Government could lift the borrowing cap on councils building new homes to rent, which would supply an economic boost and provide affordable homes. In places such as Eastleigh, 30% of every new development is reserved for affordable housing. We have 5,830 people on the housing list, so it is vital that we do something about it.
	To achieve a significant increase in house building, we need to reverse the banks’ failure to fund it properly, especially for small and medium-sized builders. Before 2007, the inability of banks to assess the true risks resulted in massive losses. Now the situation is reversed. It is the same old story; the banks go from one extreme to another.
	We need to co-ordinate our housing policies, our commercial and mortgage lending policies and our planning policies. There is no point in keeping them separate. Banks, local government and builders are all
	part of the same whole. I am confident that this Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition can act accordingly, but we need to find a way for us all to work together.

Peter Hain: Contrary to the Chancellor’s mantra, Britain’s return to recession was not made in Europe. It was made in Britain by the severe fiscal squeeze that the Chancellor launched nearly three years ago. Problems in the eurozone spell trouble for the UK economy—of course they do—but the Chancellor never mentions the fact that Britain has benefited from the recovery of the USA economy, which accounts for 20% of our trade, and is currently growing four times faster than the eurozone is slowing, because the USA took the route of economic stimulus and stuck to it. Britain set out on the same path under Labour after the banking crisis, and the economy began to pick up. However, the coalition veered off as soon as the Tories and Lib Dems took office, turning the road to recovery under Labour into the road to ruin.
	Cutting too far and too fast means that the Chancellor has missed all his key targets. In the year that is ending, his target deficit—the cyclically adjusted current deficit as a share of gross domestic product—is twice what he originally said it would be. Next year, the Office for Budget Responsibility expects it to be four times what he planned. He has also missed his public sector debt target: instead of falling to 67% of GDP in 2015-16, under the Budget it will fall to 85% two years later, in 2017-18. That is a surreal definition of success: debt falling upwards. Salvador Dali would be proud.
	Zero growth has forced the Chancellor to accept higher borrowing targets—more than £200 billion higher over five years than he planned in 2010. Most of the cuts that have been announced have yet to hit home. Cuts and austerity will continue Britain’s economic inertia, with more disastrous, scorched earth economics to come. Growth, not cuts, should be the priority. Sadly, there is plenty of spare capacity in the UK economy, which could easily grow quite quickly for a few years by taking up the slack, with borrowing, the deficit and debt falling. Jonathan Portes, former chief economist at the Cabinet Office, said:
	“A few years of 3% growth—and given the amount of spare capacity in the UK economy, there is no reason that should be infeasible…—and much of the problem will simply vanish”.
	Growth is the magic bullet for overcoming our deficit and debt problems.

Edward Leigh: If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the cuts have not yet hit home, which is quite right, why does he think that they have fuelled the recession?

Peter Hain: Cuts have fuelled the recession because they have driven demand out of the economy. Getting the economy growing again, as I said, is the key to cutting the deficit, then stabilising and bringing down the debt burden. Once the economy is growing again, it will be much easier to deliver any remaining tax rises or spending cuts that may still be necessary because, as Jonathan Portes says, jobs will be plentiful, real incomes will rise and companies will invest again.
	The Tory charge is that Labour would increase borrowing. The answer is, yes, in the short term, we would, but to reduce borrowing in the long term. Borrowing
	more today can mean borrowing less tomorrow by getting the economy growing again. President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package added to the US federal deficit in the short term, but as US interest rates fell, spending and output rose, and dole queues shortened. As a proportion of America’s expanding GDP, its overall deficit has shrunk every year since 2009, contrary to what has happened to our deficit. A budget boost that triggered real recovery in Britain could follow the same pattern, speeding up the growth of UK national income, cutting the deficit as a proportion of GDP and causing the debt burden to fall.
	That is what the Budget should have been about, but old habits die hard as the coalition partners continue to peddle their big deceit. First, they said that the entire global banking crisis was caused by Labour recruiting far too many nurses, doctors, teachers and police officers, and that the trigger for the world financial collapse—sub-prime mortgage defaults in the USA—was all Labour’s fault. The second big deceit is their claim that today’s public sector deficit was caused by excessive Labour spending. To quote utterances of almost every Conservative MP as if on a dreary looped tape, too much Labour borrowing led to too much national debt, so the cuts are all Labour’s fault. They never admit the truth. They never say why, if spending was “out of control” and wildly excessive, the Chancellor in September 2007 committed a Tory Government to matching Labour’s public spending plans for the next three years, up to 2010.
	The Chancellor knew only too well that Labour’s spending was affordable, otherwise he would not have signed up to that. The Tories never acknowledge that, until the global banking crisis, British Government debt was low, below that of France, Germany, the USA and Japan, and lower than when we took over from the Tories in 1997. Ten years of steady economic growth under Labour allowed us to pay down debt by the equivalent of £90 billion today, saving taxpayers some £3 billion a year in interest payments. We did fix the roof while the sun was shining.
	Between 1997 and 2007, annual Labour borrowing averaged only one third of annual borrowing by the Thatcher and John Major Governments. This is the fourth dreadful Budget by a dreadful Government. It is the same old story from the same old Tories: Budget day blues for Britain. The Chancellor is playing a peculiar game of leapfrog with himself. Every Budget brings worse news. Every autumn statement confirms that things are worse than expected. The Government are failing on growth, failing to improve living standards, and failing on their debt, borrowing and deficit targets. They have got to make way for Labour.

Richard Graham: Brushing aside the unhappy attempt by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) to rewrite recent history, I shall move on swiftly to discuss the Budget.
	Let us begin with the introduction of £10,000 tax-free income.

Peter Hain: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Graham: The right hon. Gentleman has had his chance.
	I absolutely relate to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) and his aspiration that everyone on the minimum wage should in due course pay no income tax. That was a magnificent announcement of Conservative and coalition policy to help those who work hardest on the lowest incomes, and we should all applaud it.
	Secondly, the Leader of the Opposition made a great deal recently of apologising for Labour’s axing of the 10p rate, and he now wants to bring it back, but while he is busy executing a second U-turn on 10p tax, my constituents, especially the many thousands who will benefit from the changes in the Budget, prefer the simple Conservative and coalition approach of zero tax for the lowest paid.
	The whole House should unite in applauding the Government for announcing an employment allowance of £2,000, which can be used by small businesses for apprentices or new employees who are older, and can help to continue to bring down youth unemployment, which in my constituency of Gloucester, as a result of all the new apprenticeships that started last year, fell by 18% in 2012. Ten days ago, during national apprenticeships week, I visited three new apprentices in Gloucester, in real estate, golf clubs and ski centres, and if ever there was an example of how apprenticeships have spread through previously unknown sectors those three new apprentices proved it. That is why the Government should go on supporting apprenticeships and bringing the young into employment.
	Today, housing is at the core of the debate, and I believe that it is the key to growth stimulus, as it was after the recession of the 1930s and the recession of the second world war. The Centre for Cities rightly said in its recent note that
	“there is one area where effective interventions have the potential to generate jobs and growth in the short term: housing.”
	It went on to say that
	“100,000 new houses…could boost Gross Domestic Product by 1% and support up to 150,000 jobs.”
	The Centre for Cities, which recently moved Gloucester up the ratings for cities from 49th to 21st, is clearly a research institute to be followed closely, and I agree with its conclusions on the ratings and with its analysis on the importance of housing.
	The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said that he believed that the response to the Budget on housing was largely critical. He was right in one respect, as the National Housing Federation said:
	“The Government should be focusing on unlocking investment to build more new homes”.
	However, we cannot new build new homes unless there is a market for them, which is why the Government’s policy, through help to buy, of providing £3.5 billion for new homes, will make a significant difference to make sure that people can afford to buy those new homes. The National House Building Council said that it is
	“great news that housing has been the centre piece of this Budget. This is a positive step for homebuilders and homeowners alike.”
	Both Barratt and Persimmon welcomed the development, and Barratt said:
	“We are now gearing up to meet the increase in inquiries that we expect to see.”

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman said that we cannot have new homes unless there is a market for them, but the problem is not the market but price and affordability; it is the supply of homes.

Richard Graham: That is precisely why the help to buy scheme, which guarantees 20% of deposits on new homes, will make a significant difference.
	There is one aspect on which I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds Central and on which I hope the Government will be able to move faster: the need to restructure some of the arm’s length management organisations that provide social housing and enable them to use their balance sheets to build and regenerate, rather than just adding to the public sector borrowing requirement. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury knows well that I hope that that will move forward fast, and that discussions between the Homes and Communities Agency, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Treasury, which have been ongoing on for almost 18 months, will move forward swiftly so that we can deliver new housing in the social sector to my constituents as soon as possible.
	New housing worked in the 1930s and 1950s and it can work today, so let us get on with it and build those new homes as soon as possible so that the economic growth that the Centre for Cities research anticipates can happen as soon as possible. I will be supporting the Budget to achieve that.

Julie Elliott: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I intend to focus on three central issues emanating from the Budget: housing, infrastructure and employment practices.
	Increasing the level of house building is vital to any economic recovery and to assisting families and young people to get on to the housing ladder, yet under this Government house building has fallen while rents have risen. Young people in Sunderland, where house prices are not as high as in other parts of the country, still face massive challenges in getting into the housing market. Those difficulties are augmented by the Government’s wider economic failures, and banks remain reluctant to give mortgages, even to financially secure applicants. Renters in Sunderland can only hope that the Government’s help to buy scheme will be more successful than the new homes bonus, which has led to housing starts falling by 11%, or the NewBuy scheme, which has helped just 1.5% of the 100,000 people who the Prime Minister claimed would be able to buy their home.
	I welcome any action to help people get on to the housing ladder, but increasing credit without increasing supply will simply raise house prices, further widening the gap between those who own their own home and those who want to. Gentoo, the largest social housing provider in my constituency, manages over 29,000 properties in Sunderland, but it has over 22,000 people on its waiting list, and that is without taking into account new and emerging need. Simply put, Sunderland needs more homes.
	In his Budget speech, the Chancellor used the phrase “work hard and get on” three times. What he does not understand is that people are working hard, despite stagnant wages, and they are getting on, despite cuts to vital services.
	The Government are dithering on improving energy efficiency standards for new homes. Those delays are hugely damaging for investment in new homes and signal the Government’s abandonment of their “greenest ever” commitment.
	I will now turn my attention to infrastructure and the Government’s response to the Heseltine report. Two things were clear from Lord Heseltine’s evidence to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee: first, his passionate belief in Government’s ability to boost growth, create jobs and raise living standards; and secondly, his concern about the Government’s direction and the fact that
	“the UK does not have a strategy for growth and wealth creation”.
	I agree that local leaders are best placed to understand the opportunities and obstacles to growth in their own communities. That the Chancellor has finally committed to investment in infrastructure projects is welcome, but those projects should have been announced in his first budget, not his fourth. I welcome the single local growth fund, but it will not be operational until 2015. We simply cannot wait that long. We cannot accept a five-year gap between the announcement of the abolition of the regional development agencies and the devolution of funds proposed by Lord Heseltine. We will not see economic growth until our regional economies are growing.
	Where growth takes place matters, too. A report on foreign direct investment by the Institute for Public Policy Research North shows that since the Government announced the closure of the RDAs, FDI decreased by 31% in the north-east from 2010 to 2011, while it has increased in the south-east by 102%. We do not yet know the size of the “devolved pot”. Lord Heseltine recommended that a fund of £49 billion was needed, but Government sources now suggest that it will be in the low billions. The success of the Heseltine plan will be determined not by the quantity of recommendations that the Government will implement, but by the size and timing of the investment.
	My final point in response to the Budget is on employment practices. The Chancellor looked particularly pleased to announce that the private sector had created 1.25 million new jobs since 2010. Although I welcome new jobs, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) will get an answer to his question on what sectors those jobs are in and what hours people are working so we can understand better what is happening in the labour market, because I fear that many of the jobs are low-wage and low-hours. People on zero-hour contracts cannot take advantage of the Government’s child care help because they do not know when they will need child care. They cannot take advantage of the mortgage policies because they will not be eligible for mortgages.
	It is vital that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor change course so that a lost Government do not lead to a lost decade.

Fiona Bruce: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	I welcome the Budget on behalf of the almost 4,000 hard- working small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency—companies such as Dutton Contractors in Middlewich, which I visited on Friday and had the privilege of opening two new warehouses for. It is a
	family business that was started in 1974 by the father, John Dutton, who is a farmer. It sells and transports building construction materials. The son, Richard Dutton, has so developed the business recently that it now has 80 employees. The decision in the Budget to further stop Labour’s planned fuel rises is worth £7 to every family each time they fill up a family car, but it is worth considerably more to companies such as Dutton Contractors, which has a fleet of vehicles, so it very much welcomes the Budget.
	Dutton Contractors also welcomed the £2,000 national insurance allowance. It was also welcomed, in particular, by Neon Freight Ltd, which is based in Holmes Chapel. Honours go to Ian Mallon, the proprietor of that freight forwarding company, and currently its sole employee, for giving the fastest response to the Budget. He sent me an e-mail at 1.28 pm—the Chancellor can barely have sat down. The e-mail’s subject was, “Employers tax/Budget”, and it reads:
	“Great news… please send my thanks to G.O… I will be taking on staff this year.”
	That is what I call a result.
	Having said that, however, I am disappointed that the Government appear once again to have done nothing to honour their manifesto commitment—it is a coalition commitment and certainly a Conservative manifesto commitment—to recognise marriage in the tax system through transferable tax allowances for couples where one partner stays at home. Many people are genuinely bemused that such an important commitment should remain completely untouched well into the second half of this Parliament. They are increasingly bemused by the announcement of the introduction of tax-free child care worth up to £1,200 every year for children aged up to 12, but obtainable only by either single parents working or couples where both partners work. The Prime Minister said:
	“This is a boost direct to the pockets of hard-working families in what will be one of the biggest measures ever introduced to help with childcare costs.”
	But do families with one parent who stays at home not work hard, too? That has not sent out a positive message to mothers and fathers who stay at home and commit themselves to parenting; it does not say to them, as I think we should, “We value you.”

Edward Leigh: One advantage of the child tax allowance announced in the Budget is that it makes it almost inevitable that we will have to fulfil our coalition promise on a transferable tax allowance for married couples.

Fiona Bruce: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am not criticising the Government’s decision to support child care costs; I am saying that they have got the balance wrong by doing that while not at the same time honouring the coalition commitment for transferable tax allowances for married couples.
	I have massive respect for those mothers and fathers who stay at home. I have never stayed at home to work and have always worked outside the home, but many parents do so sacrificially, and many parents in one-earner families, as Department for Work and Pensions figures clearly show, stay at home because they have to. Many have significant child care responsibilities for very young children, or care for sick or disabled relatives. It is interesting that the Government quoted OECD figures
	in support of its decision last week. Let me quote some OECD figures: the tax burden on a one-earner, married couple family on an average wage in the UK is now 42% greater than the OECD average.
	I have raised this issue in respect of every Budget since I have been in this House. Two years ago, having tabled an appropriate amendment to the Finance Bill, I received from my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury a letter that said:
	“Dear Fiona
	I am writing to about the new clause on transferable personal allowances for married couples that you have tabled for the Finance Bill. I agree entirely that marriage is a positive institution and it is clear from our manifesto that we believe this should be recognised in the tax system.
	We are keen to send a clear message that family and marriage matters and that strong and healthy families help create a strong and healthy society. We must do more to support families and the tax system is one way in which this can be achieved…you can rest assured that our commitment to bringing forward these changes remains firm and that we are assessing various options with a range of different costs and will bring forward proposals at the appropriate time.”
	I believe that that time is now. If we genuinely believe in choice—a word much trumpeted last week on the announcement of support for child care costs—we should not be making it more difficult for mothers to stay at home but should give them that choice, too. The Prime Minister has said:
	“If we are going to get control of public spending in the long term…we should target the causes of higher spending, one of which is family breakdown. We should do far more to recognise the importance of families, commitment and marriage”.—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 429.]
	This year, I again call on the Government, at the third time of asking—it sounds a bit like calling the banns of marriage, but that is quite appropriate—to insert a provision into the Finance Bill, this time by way of their own amendment, to introduce transferable allowances for married couples. That is quite simply the right and honourable thing to do.

Anne Begg: As time is short and lots of hon. Members still want to speak, I will concentrate my remarks on two matters: something I was disappointed not to find in the Budget and something I was completely surprised to find in it.
	The thing I was disappointed not to find was any change in the Government’s attitude to what has become known as the bedroom tax. I was not naive enough to think that they would make a complete volte face having realised it is such an insidious and wrong-headed policy, but I did think there might be some movement on the kinds of people in households who should be completely exempt. I am thinking of households with a profoundly disabled child or where a house has been specially adapted for someone with a disability. The Government say that people who have had their house adapted can apply for a discretionary housing payment, but it should not at the discretion of the local authority to decide whether it is affordable to pay the rent on a house that has been specially adapted for an individual.
	As someone who has had to adapt a number of houses, I know how difficult it is, how expensive it can be, and how upsetting it can be for the individual. I also
	know that very often the adaptations are made specifically for the individual, so if the family has to move out of their home as a result of not getting their housing benefit paid in full, the house will not necessarily be any good for any other disabled person. This is wrong-headed—it should never be discretionary. I hope that it is not too late for the Government to make sure that that group of people is exempt from the bedroom tax.
	The thing I was surprised to see in the Budget was the change in the date for the introduction of the new single-tier pension. I recognise that this might be a bit academic for hon. Members in the Chamber today, but my Select Committee, the Work and Pensions Committee, was asked to carry out the pre-legislative scrutiny of the changes to the state pension. The Bill that was published had a start date of April 2017, and we had taken all our evidence on that basis. We had asked the industry whether it could be ready by April 2017 and asked the various user groups whether that was a reasonable time scale.
	Having taken all that evidence and done the scrutiny work that the Government had asked us to do, it came as a complete surprise when we found in the Budget that the date was to be brought forward by a whole year and the measure will now be implemented from April 2016. It makes a mockery of the pre-legislative scrutiny process that we were not able to do our job properly and ask the right questions. Just a week before, the Minister responsible had said that there would be no slippage in the timetable and that April 2017 would be the implementation date.
	One might think that perhaps, because the Budget was covered by all the usual purdah arrangements, the Government were unable to tell us that the measure was going to come in a year earlier, but the information was leaked and was all over the papers the Sunday before. Clearly, the Government knew they were going to change the date. This was obviously very tempting for the Chancellor given that some £5.9 billion is generated by bringing in the change to contracting out, because no one will be contracted out under the new single-tier pension. I am very angry, as you can tell, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this was landed on my Committee at the very last moment.

Henry Smith: The Budget reaffirmed the Government’s economic strategy of focusing on reducing the deficit, restoring stability, rebalancing the economy and equipping the UK to compete globally. With over 1.25 million new private sector jobs created and the deficit reduced by a third since the general election, Great Britain is clearly on the right course.
	There is one issue, however, that I would have liked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to address—tackling the severe inherited levels of air passenger duty. That was a missed opportunity to boost UK competitiveness further still, to reduce the cost of business travel to stimulate trade and investment, and to help hard-working families who want to visit their friends or family or to take a well-earned family holiday.
	The previous Labour Government inherited a very modest level of APD and, over time, significantly increased the rates, particularly for long-haul travel. Since taking office, my right hon. Friend has recognised this problem by delivering a temporary one-year freeze and limiting
	increases to the level of inflation. While this action has been very welcome, we should be going further to undo Labour’s damage. Most countries do not charge an international air travel tax at all, but of the handful that do, the UK has by far the highest such tax—more than double that of the next highest charging country, which is Germany. Levying the world’s highest air passenger tax is not a sustainable position for an island nation seeking to increase international trade and to attract millions of new in-bound visitors.
	There is significant public concern about APD. Hon. Members have received hundreds of e-mails from constituents, and over 200,000 people have contacted their Member of Parliament to say that APD rates are too high. However, public concern has not, until now, been supported by detailed and credible evidence. Four airlines, including Virgin Atlantic, which is headquartered in my constituency, and EasyJet, the majority of whose services go from London Gatwick airport, commissioned an independent report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers that provides that missing analysis. It makes interesting reading with regard to the nature of APD and its role in the UK economy. It finds that APD is the highest tax of its type in the world by a considerable margin; that it is a highly distortive tax that is at least as damaging to the economy—and probably more so on a pound for pound basis—than corporation tax, and second only to fuel duty among major UK taxes; and that UK businesses in aggregate pay about £500 million in APD each year.
	The report’s main analysis relates to the impact on the economy and tax revenues if APD were to be abolished. The report’s modelling suggests that by abolishing APD the UK could boost its gross domestic product by 0.45% in the first year, with continuing benefits through to 2020. Abolishing APD would also increase investment by 6% and exports, including earnings from foreign tourism, by 5% between 2013 and 2015. Abolishing APD would pay for itself, with increased business growth leading to higher tax receipts from other sources, outweighing the lost APD revenue, and it would lead to the creation of up to 60,000 jobs between now and 2020. The report acknowledges that it is uncommon but not unprecedented for tax cuts to pay for themselves.
	Even though this has been a step too far for this Budget, I hope that I have made the case that abolishing APD would have been a significant contributor to the UK economy and the Exchequer and to boosting growth in what was otherwise an excellent Budget for hard-working families and businesses in my constituency and throughout the country.

Naomi Long: All of us who sat in the Chamber throughout last week’s Budget statement will be acutely aware of the context in which this debate is taking place. Global economic conditions remain extremely challenging and the impact on the UK economy has led to the downgrading of many of last year’s Budget predictions.
	The people we represent, who listened to the statement outside this place, were realistic about the Budget, but they also hoped for measures that would encourage inward investment and growth; give businesses confidence and access to finance to create new jobs and help grow their export markets; ease the pressure on family budgets and small businesses alike; tackle inequality in society; and stimulate desperately needed growth.
	Although talk of an aspiration nation is great rhetoric and a worthy aim, it is the job of Government not only to ensure that people are encouraged to have aspirations, but, if there is to be real improvement, to create the context in which they have the opportunities and support to fulfil them.
	In the brief time available I want to focus on a few aspects of the Budget, welcoming some of the positive measures and highlighting a number of areas where more could be done.
	I commend the Government for upholding their commitment to spending 0.7% of gross national income on international development. Given the current economic climate, it is understandable, though regrettable, that, despite the fact that this allocation represents a small fraction of overall Government expenditure, it comes under continuing pressure. However, by standing by the commitment, the UK is showing leadership in the international community. Aid well spent is a powerful tool to tackle severe global poverty, to assist some of the poorest nations in becoming more self-sustaining and to support global justice, human rights and security. Moreover, although it is spent abroad, it also contributes to protecting our own national interest.
	In that vein, I also welcome the fact that at the same time as the Treasury is seeking to tackle tax avoidance in the UK—which we all welcome—it has also committed to prioritising dealing with international tax avoidance by UK companies, which is depriving many nations from the transition from aid to trade. I hope that it will be robust in its actions.
	I also welcome the increase in the personal tax allowance, which will lift many of those in the lowest paid employment out of tax altogether. If it were part of a package of measures to tackle poverty more comprehensively, it would be even more welcome. However, as I noted last year, as an anti-poverty measure it is neither the most effective nor the most targeted approach. Although the poorest working families will benefit, raising the personal allowance will also benefit many others.
	In the time remaining, I want to comment briefly on measures that will impact on Northern Ireland in particular. I welcome the reduction in corporation tax, which is a particularly sensitive issue given our land border with the Republic of Ireland, where corporation tax is significantly lower at 12.5%. Although it would not be a silver bullet, the devolution of corporation tax has been identified by industry, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the Northern Ireland Executive as an important tool in stimulating the economy and attracting inward investment. The UK-wide reduction, though modest, is a step in the right direction and will also lower the potential cost to the Northern Ireland Assembly should this tax power be devolved, as many of us wish. It is disappointing that that devolution was not announced in the Budget. I trust that the Prime Minister will have more positive news for the First and Deputy First Ministers when he meets them to discuss the matter tomorrow.

Nigel Dodds: The hon. Lady can be assured that virtually all the Northern Ireland Assembly parties support what she has just said. Does she agree that it is important that their meeting with the Prime Minister tomorrow has the endorsement of all major business groups, major community groups and people who are concerned about jobs and employment in Northern Ireland?

Naomi Long: I agree entirely that they have that endorsement, and the Prime Minister’s Twitter feed today suggests that all of those sectors are engaged in lobbying activity.
	Being geographically more remote adds to household bills and business costs. The cost of fuel, for example, is a particular pressure, with Northern Ireland consumers facing the highest petrol and diesel prices in the UK and some of the highest in Europe. This impacts on households, business and our international competitiveness, so I welcome the cancellation of the fuel duty increase that was planned for September. The cost of energy generation more widely is also greater in Northern Ireland and the exemption from the carbon price floor is a welcome measure for energy producers and consumers alike.
	Regrettably, the Chancellor offered no good news on another significant cost of our peripherality—air passenger duty. I recognise the previous work done to devolve APD for direct long-haul flights from Northern Ireland, but if we are to support essential connectivity, reduce business costs and grow our inbound and outbound tourism sectors, both of which contribute significantly to the Northern Ireland and UK economy, the Treasury needs to look at the issue again. A recent report by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which has been referenced by the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), indicated that reducing or abolishing APD could stimulate growth and lead to the raising of more revenue, rather than less. The Treasury appears to have dismissed that analysis, but I urge it to do its own study on the impact of APD on growth.
	There are many other issues that I would like to raise, but little further time to do so. In conclusion, talk of creating an aspiration nation is a good thing but, at a time when unemployment figures in Northern Ireland are at their highest for 15 years, taking action that will match aspiration with real opportunity is much more important. I remain to be convinced that this Budget will do that for the people whom I represent.

Edward Leigh: I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) will forgive me if I do not follow on from what she said, but she spoke a lot of sense about air passenger duty and I agree with her.
	One of the most powerful points made by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who led for the Opposition, was when he mentioned somebody who visited his constituency surgery only last week who, after serving in a job for 30 years, had been made unemployed. As it happens, I had a similar case of somebody who had served for 30 years but who had now, through no fault of her own, been made unemployed, could not find a job and was in negative equity. That brings home to all of us the human nature of what we are dealing with. Although we may bandy statistics across the House, we are dealing with a desperate situation—for which, by the way, I do not blame the Chancellor—and we should put at the forefront of our minds the appalling human tragedy of ordinary people who are being put out of work and who cannot find work.
	In my view, the best way to recreate the conditions in which people can find work is to create a balanced economy that can recreate confidence. Unfortunately,
	our public spending is unbalanced: half of our £730 billion or £750 billion budget is taken up by health and welfare, which are ring-fenced, and that puts enormous stresses and strains on all other budgets.
	Despite the attempt by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), with characteristic chutzpah, to rewrite history, I am not sure that it is possible to argue that austerity has caused this recession when, in fact, we are spending more than ever before—despite the fact that the figures were manipulated for this Budget—and borrowing more than ever before. The central thrust of the Labour party’s argument, which is that the problems have been caused by this Government, does not add up and the British people do not think that it adds up. They want more positive suggestions from the Labour party that show what it would do better in the face of the desperate international situation.

Richard Graham: Did my hon. Friend find it curious that the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) seemed to be unclear about why our exports are effectively stagnant, when they had been expected to rise by 6%? Surely he must know that exports to the EU have fallen off a cliff while other exports have risen.

Edward Leigh: Absolutely. That shows the sort of difficulties in the Labour party’s arguments. If it is to form a Government, it must come up with a viable alternative.
	I do not support cutting for the sake of cutting. If Tesco has a problem in its bread department, it sells bread more efficiently; it does not cut the number of loaves it sells. I agree about that, but the Labour party cannot give simplistic solutions based on more wasteful spending, nor can it constantly say that our problems would be solved if we restored the 50% tax band, when every study proves that it reduced revenues to the Treasury. As we know, the top 1% of earners pay 24% of all tax revenues. Labour has to come up with something more intellectual and rational if it is to convince the British people that it is ready for government.
	The situation is dire. The incomes of 2007 will not be seen again until 2019. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, we will need a further £9 billion of cuts to public services after the next election. In 2015, there will be £70 billion more borrowing than was predicted in 2010. Any Budget giveaways—I accept that this Budget is politically astute—will be soaked up by inflation rising faster than wages. That point has already been made about the 1p cut in beer duty. One would have to drink five pints every night for seven nights to save 35p a week. I am not sure that will impress anybody. The cut in corporation tax is welcome, but that is only a small part of the total cost to business. Business rates have increased by 13% in three years and are the prime motivator against growth in the small business economy.
	The problems that we face are difficult, complex and international. I am still firmly convinced that we need a strategy based on levelling taxation as much as is possible. The attempt to bring corporation tax more in line with small business tax is a first step. We should try to flatten all capital taxes and business taxes. We should then move on to income taxes and get rid of the plethora of allowances, which fuels an industry based on evasion and avoidance.
	At first sight, the excellent scheme that the Chancellor is trying to bring together to help with home loans is very good if it does not lead to a property bubble. However, it is a bit like somebody climbing a ladder with loads of our money, throwing it over the edge and saying, “May the fittest come and get it.” It is a bit like the person rushing towards the pool of Bethesda.
	It would be much better to have a flatter, simpler form of taxation so that people make their own decisions and do not rely on Government handouts, and so that we do not have a huge industry based on evasion and avoidance.
	We are creating a special child care allowance for people who want to put their children into child care. That is great, but why have we not fulfilled our pledge to introduce a married person’s tax allowance?

Fiona Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are out of line with international best practice in not recognising marriage in our income tax system?

Edward Leigh: We are out of line. I am quite prepared not to hold the Government to account on their solemn promise to bring in a married tax allowance if they get rid of the other allowances and restore universal child benefit and all the other things. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot make it tax and benefit advantageous for a mother—it is usually a mother—to go out to work if they do not help mothers who want to stay at home and add to the economy by looking after their own children. That is unfair and something has to be done about it.
	We cannot carry on with Budgets that simply tweak things. We need a long-term strategy based on simplifying the tax system and on budgetary reform. We must remove as many of the allowances as possible. We must change the culture of constantly tweaking things with Budgets and instead look to the long term and create a more simplified and effective tax system.

Sarah Champion: Last Wednesday was my first Budget since entering the House and I had high expectations. [Laughter.] I know that shows my naivety. We all know how much our constituents are suffering financially as the economy continues to flatline, so I was expecting a Budget that would jump-start growth. I was hugely disappointed, and I believe that my disappointment was shared by the country.
	We face the biggest housing crisis in a generation, but the Government’s housing and economic policies are making it worse. House building is crucial to this country, both to bring economic recovery and to get families on the housing ladder.

Henry Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sarah Champion: No, I am sorry.
	Initially, I broadly welcomed the Government’s schemes to encourage people to buy new builds and to assist people with mortgage deposits. With the demise of building societies, banks have a virtual monopoly on mortgages. The percentage that is required for a deposit has been rising steadily, especially for first-time buyers. That has created an environment in which people who
	are more than able to pay for a mortgage cannot get one because the tens of thousands of pounds that they need for a deposit are unachievable.
	However, I then started to consider the broader picture and the details of the schemes. First, it has been revealed that the Government’s mortgage scheme will not exclude people who are buying a second home. What about a third or a fourth home? How does that help people who are starting out? Not only are the Government pressing ahead with tax cuts for millionaires, it now seems that the mortgage scheme will help people, no matter how high their income, to buy a subsidised second home worth up to £600,000. Secondly, what interest rate will be charged, or will it be an interest-free loan? Thirdly, is it right that the taxpayer will effectively be underwriting the banks? The state will be facilitating banks to make profits on these mortgages.
	My main question is, where are all the new homes for people to buy? The Government’s schemes mean that more people will be trying to buy the same number of houses. That will just push up the cost of a house unless more homes are built. The Government announced an extra £225 million for affordable house building, but according to the OBR only £125 million will be spent before 2015. That figure is dwarfed by the £4 billion cut in the funding for affordable housing that the Chancellor made in his first Budget. That stopped a very successful affordable housing scheme in Rotherham that was run by Transform South Yorkshire.
	House building is at its lowest rate since the 1920s and the situation is getting worse. Housing starts fell by 11% in 2012 to below 100,000. The impact of that is that the Government have put 80,000 construction workers out of work and construction output has fallen by 8.2%.
	Labour has proposed some practical measures to address that problem. We called on the Chancellor to use the money raised from the 4G mobile auction to build thousands of affordable homes to stimulate the economy and tackle the housing crisis. To improve the housing stock, we recommended that VAT on home repairs, maintenance and improvements should be cut to just 5%. To help young people who want to get on to the property ladder, the CBI’s proposal of a housing individual savings account should be considered. We also advocate giving first-time buyers a stamp duty holiday on properties worth up to £250,000. Finally, I support Labour’s recommendation to bring forward long-term infrastructure investment in schools, roads and transport to get construction workers back to work and to strengthen our economy.
	Those measures would boost growth, get builders back to work building the homes that we need, and create apprenticeships for young people. I urge the Government to look more closely at the details of their schemes and to find ways to build more affordable homes and genuinely help first-time buyers. We need action now to get Britain building and to kick-start our economy.

Nigel Evans: I thank Sarah Champion for taking less time than she was allowed, which will mean that other Members can get in.

Annette Brooke: Overall, I think the Budget contains some helpful measures to help families with the cost of living, and it invests in
	the future of our economy within a responsible framework. As a Liberal Democrat, I am naturally proud of the rise in the personal allowance to £10,000 from April 2014—one year earlier than planned—which will give 24.5 million people a tax reduction of £700. I was also pleased at the introduction of the employment allowance, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. My constituents will certainly be pleased with the freeze in fuel duty, the scrapping of the beer duty escalator and the cut in duty on beer.
	I wish to concentrate in my short speech on the overall £5.4 billion boost to housing, but I will make a slight digression to talk about child trust funds— I should declare that I am a grandparent with a granddaughter who has a child trust fund. I have received a number of representations on those funds recently, and I have been sent details from a campaign by Money Mail under the headline:
	“The £34,000 curse of child trust funds: Six million children are barred from best savings deals”.
	One could interpret that as stating that the next generation of young people might be deprived of a deposit for a house, and at the other end of the scale, for lower income people, there are clearly children with trust funds who are not receiving the levels of interest that they should in terms of equity. I wanted to raise that issue with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury who is sitting on the Front Bench.
	The housing package is part of building a stronger economy and a fairer society, and includes a number of measures to support home ownership, new development and affordable housing. Over the past year or so, there has been agreement across the House that stimulating the construction sector is key to stimulating growth. It is a win-win situation with more jobs and more money created for our economy, without particularly sucking in imports. It is estimated that each extra home built each year creates jobs for three to four construction workers and those in associated industries, thereby improving business confidence.
	During previous debates we have identified issues on the demand and supply sides of the housing market, and many have argued that the problem is not with planning as such. On the demand side, measures in the Budget have the potential to extend the supply of new houses, perhaps converting some of the hundreds of thousands of non-implemented planning applications into homes. Meeting the needs of those willing and able to buy, and the aspirations of those wishing to be home owners, is important, and will give this generation the same opportunities as my generation. At times tonight I have wondered whether the Labour party actually believes in encouraging home ownership.
	Of course, home ownership is not the whole solution to our housing problem. I represent an area—Purbeck—that has a very high house-price-to-wages ratio and a high proportion of second homes. Although I am keen on the two schemes to stimulate mortgages, I am not keen on them subsidising second homes as that would make the situation in Purbeck and Dorset even worse. I like both schemes, however, because they involve first-time buyers and second steppers, and I think that we must put a shock through the whole market.
	But—and there is a but—I think we have to do a lot more. I like the buy to rent stimulus, but we need to increase the supply of affordable housing over and above what we want to do and have done already. In the next phase we ought to look at the capacity of councils to borrow money for building housing, at direct building by councils, and at supporting arm’s length management organisations, which is incredibly important. An ALMO in my constituency is ready to start building but cannot get the borrowing capacity.

Graeme Morrice: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate, because the Budget last week revealed the true scale of the Government’s economic failure. As the next election grows closer, the Chancellor faced a test. He needed to boost household incomes and help cut the cost of essentials, but neither of those was forthcoming and his Budget failed to do enough for low-income households.
	With an eye fixed firmly on the next general election, the Chancellor is pinning his hopes on a housing boom. His make-or-break blueprint for rebuilding the economy is unlikely to make a difference to the nation’s finances, as the focus has clearly shifted towards manifesto writing, positioning and early electioneering ahead of 2015. More than ever, taxpayers will now underwrite the mortgages of hundreds of thousands of home buyers, and take stakes in newly built houses in a multi-billion pound attempt to stimulate the struggling economy. However, he risks causing another unsustainable boom in the housing market, putting billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money at risk and offering little hope to hard-pressed working families who are struggling to get on the housing ladder for the first time.
	We face the biggest housing crisis in a generation, but the Government’s housing and economic policies will make it worse by stoking house prices rather than helping families find a home. The Government have insisted that homes sold through the right to buy scheme will be replaced with more affordable housing on a one-for-one basis, but the Budget included £4.5 billion of funding for housing, with only £225 million of that to be spent on affordable homes. If we do not tackle the fact that we are still not building enough homes, we will create another housing bubble that will continue to push house prices out of reach of the majority.
	Not only is the Chancellor pressing ahead with a tax cut for millionaires, it now seems that his mortgage scheme will help people, no matter how high their income, to buy a subsidised second home worth up to £600,000. Surely people struggling to get a mortgage, and those who want to own their first home, must be the priority for help, rather than the small number who can afford to buy a second home. If the Government concentrated at least some effort on collecting taxes from international corporations that operate in this country, and closing some of the loopholes in the tax system, there would be more money to go around.
	With the coalition’s axe in full swing, I am appalled that the Government place so much effort on reforming the benefits system and punishing the sick and most vulnerable in our society, while those at the very top have seen their incomes rise as never before. The financial sector is at the heart of the economy. Huge, multi-million pound payouts to “banksters”, while citizens cannot
	even afford to feed themselves, undermine any efforts to break with the past and are a timely reminder that the country is being run by the rich for the rich. As the rest of the country faces austerity, just an hour after the Chancellor delivered his Budget speech, Barclays bank paid nine fat cat bosses £40 million in share payments. That makes a complete mockery of claims that banks are cleaning up their act when it comes to their bonus culture.
	At exactly the same time as the bedroom tax comes into force, the Government are prepared to give 13,000 millionaires, including the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, a tax cut of £100,000—£3 billion in total a year—while more than half a million households that are home to a disabled person will lose £700. That is simply not right.

Edward Leigh: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with the Mandelson-Blair approach that the way forward for the Labour party is not to worry about how public services are funded, but to let the rich go on funding those services through taxation? What is wrong with that?

Graeme Morrice: The hon. Gentleman clearly indicates how his Government have got their priorities wrong.
	It is time for this Government to recognise what is very much evident: that they have got this horribly wrong and need to think again before it is too late. We need a lasting change of direction by the Government, to one that demonstrates compassion, puts ordinary people first, and recognises the right priorities, or —ideally—a change of Government itself.

James Morris: Few things are as natural as the aspiration to own a home, but for too many of our constituents, the aspiration is too often out of reach. The high cost of housing is one of the most frequently raised issues at my surgery. The problem affects not only would-be first-time buyers, but many going through family breakdown. The deposit typically required for a mortgage on even a small starter home is higher than many working families’ annual income. Without parental support, raising that sort of money can be nearly impossible. The “help to buy” schemes announced last week will help to put home ownership back within the reach of hundreds of thousands of our constituents.
	I am delighted that the Chancellor is extending right to buy further, so that council tenants can buy the homes in which their families live and local authorities will receive receipts from the sales, to be used to build new social housing. I am proud that, while under Conservative leadership, Dudley built some of the first new council housing in the area for a generation. Right-to-buy receipts, and the doubling of the affordable homes guarantee programme, will mean that more councils and housing associations will be able to build new social housing for local residents.
	Last week’s jobs figures showed another increase in the number of people in work—the number in Halesowen and Rowley Regis is now the highest ever—but the fact remains that many people aspire more than anything else to a job that will give them more independence and create a better life for themselves and their families. I remember from I was setting up my own small businesses
	that nothing was more rewarding than being able to offer somebody their first job, or to offer work to a person who had been unemployed for some time. Hon. Members know that Governments cannot magically create sustainable jobs, but they have a responsibility to do everything possible to avoid putting barriers in the way of those who can. Every £1 that we add to non-wage costs represents an additional barrier to small and medium-sized businesses taking on extra employees. That is why I am pleased that the Chancellor has launched his scheme. The £2,000 employment allowance is a direct boost for new jobs. It will help to bring more people into work and open up a new set of possibilities and aspirations.
	Shortly before the Budget, I attended the launch of the youth budget in Parliament with a number of other right hon. and hon. Members, including the Chancellor. Fourteen to 18-year-olds from around the country came together to discuss young people’s priorities, which were drawn up following a national vote. That generation wants to get on, and the conclusion they came to in their youth budget could not have been clearer: they want the Government to bring down the deficit more quickly.
	The House spends a lot of time talking about the economic effects of unsustainable deficits. The continuing turmoil in the eurozone is a current reminder of the dangers of failing to address the deficit. However, the young people gathered together for the youth budget remind us that, as well as being economically foolish, it is morally wrong for one generation to expect the next pay for its overspending.
	Members on both sides of the House will recognise that growth remains weaker than had been hoped for or expected, as it does in most other developed countries. There was much in the Budget and the Chancellor’s autumn statement that will help wealth creators to deliver the economic activity that we need to provide growth, but there is also much to help to make things that little bit easier for the millions of families who are working hard to get on and build a better life for themselves and their families. I believe that those who strive and those who aspire will see this Budget as a Budget for them.

George Galloway: That speech, much of this debate and this Budget demonstrate the parallel universe in which the governing class in this country is living. Earlier in the debate, nearly four hours ago—it feels like four days—we had the full vaudeville, music hall treatment. They chuntered and they chortled and they laughed—how they laughed!—until their tummies wobbled about the state we are in.
	But there were some genuinely funny moments, the funniest of which was when the Secretary of State said that the Budget had sowed the seeds of growth and jobs in this bleak midwinter, which has now frozen out the spring. In the very month in which 4,000 grandmothers and grandfathers froze to death in Britain—froze to death in Britain, in 2013—and the very month in which millions of our citizens had to make a choice between eating and turning on their heating, the Secretary of State believes that this Budget sowed seeds for growth and jobs. No seeds can grow in this climate; hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches should know that.
	The truth is that this Budget, produced by a Cabinet of millionaires, governing in their own interests and the interests of a very narrow class, has lost the confidence of the country. Indeed, the political system and the political class as a whole have lost the confidence of the people, who see their own situation, with mass unemployment and poverty stalking the land. Bradford, my constituency, is an almost perfect example. Youth unemployment has tripled in two years; one in eight is unemployed; our child poverty statistics are the second worst in the country; our schools are the third worst in the country; our hospitals are the seventh worst in the country; our young people walk the shuttered-up streets without education, training or jobs; and the Government and others in the media cry surprise when the devil finds work for their idle hands.
	The Government have done nothing for Bradford—the Budget does nothing for Bradford—because Bradford is entirely beyond their ken. [Interruption.] Do I know where Bradford is? I am the person who, just one year ago, won a landslide election result—a by-election of historic proportions. I defeated the Labour party, the party of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), precisely because it thinks that yah-boo politics of the type we have seen in the debate is sufficient to meet the gravity of this situation. He should come to his seat and join the debate.
	Here is the truth of the matter: our country is in grave danger. It is a country on the slide, which cannot keep its pensioners warm in the winter time, but can fly around the world setting fire to other people’s countries, apparently at the drop of a hat. It is a country that cannot pay for its young people’s education without charging them £9,000 a year to take shelter from the economic winds and study at universities, thanks to the betrayal of the yellow Liberal Democrats.
	I have only 15 seconds left. Do you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, how many times in this House just this afternoon the words “immigrant”, “foreigner”, “alien” and “foreign migrant” have been mentioned? There is no U-turn by the Government, but there is no deviation to the right so low that they will not make.

Andrew George: It is, of course, a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway). His speech was a oratorical interlude that demonstrated his perspective on the world and suited his style: blacks, whites and no greys. Although he denies practising yah-boo politics, I am afraid to say that that was pretty much what we heard.
	Today, we are concentrating primarily on housing, and I want to make a constructive contribution on the narrow issue of developing the construction industry, trying to kick-start the economy in the process and meeting desperate housing need. I welcome any intervention by the Government, including the Budget announcement on the promotion of home ownership for those seeking, in many cases in desperate circumstances, to get their first toe-hold on the housing ladder. In particular, I want to look at the special circumstances faced by many people living in rural areas.
	My own part of the world is, of course, west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. Cornwall as a whole has seen the number of houses double in the past 40 years, yet
	housing problems for local people have become significantly worse. What we have learned in Cornwall applies to many other parts of the country that are attractive to wealthy people—we have many such places in Cornwall—who can afford second homes. On its own, building houses is not the problem. In places that are highly desirable to those with large wallets, something more sophisticated is required than merely heaving in a load more houses and turning the place into a developers’ paradise. There is a big mismatch between earnings levels and house prices in our area.

Gregory Campbell: The hon. Gentleman’s area, like mine, has a number of second homes on coastal development routes. Does he agree that we need the Government to plug this massive loophole, so that people do not take advantage of what appears to be there at the moment and build large buy-to-let properties with a significant subsidy from the public purse?

Andrew George: I entirely agree. As the Government introduce their proposals, I hope that they will discount any chance of the loan guarantee being used to support the purchase of second homes, and that it will go only to families that otherwise would not be able to buy a first home of their own. After I was first elected in 1997, I campaigned against the policy that had been introduced by the Conservative Government of providing a 50% council tax discount for second homes. In that case, hundreds of millions of pounds were being used every year to subsidise the wealthy buying second homes, when thousands of local families could not afford their first. This Government are finishing off the job. I persuaded the previous Labour Government to remove as much as they possibly could of the second home council tax discount, and that was the right step forward.
	Before I was elected to this House, I worked with housing associations and others to find a way of constructing a new lower rung on the housing ladder through shared equity and shared ownership schemes. The rural exceptions policy allowed exceptions to be made on the edges of villages and towns, where planning permission would not normally be granted, to meet local housing need. It allowed the schemes to go ahead and meant that the development price of land was significantly lower than would have been the case if they had been given unfettered permission to develop the land and build properties at prices that local people could not afford. The exceptions approach and shared ownership were clearly the way forward. The problem was that in rural areas only two lenders, Nationwide and Halifax, were prepared to put money into shared ownership developments.
	A lot of lenders question whether they are prepared to put their money in and support local families who are trying to get on to the housing ladder. Such properties do not result in the level of default—the amount is 0.45% in shared ownership as a whole, which is significantly less than that for rural housing stock—that a lot of lenders pretend. If the Government are looking at ways to tighten the definition and develop their loan guarantee scheme so that it will apply to families who desperately need help, I urge them to look at the shared ownership sector. They should find ways to enable the situation to come to life, but not just on the first, initial purchase;
	they should try to ensure that on the second and subsequent purchase they can facilitate and work with housing associations so that these families can move on. The lack of confidence that this market can have a life of its own is holding it back.
	I hope the Government will look at ways of having, in effect, a rural housing investment bank through this measure, and I hope that they will see this as a constructive contribution to the debate.

Barry Sheerman: I am glad I met a man from St Ives on this journey, because I agree with much of what the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said about shared ownership.
	I suppose it is because I have been in this House too long—there is usually a chorus after any Member says that—and because I have heard a lot of Budget and autumn statements that I have become more cynical about them as time goes on, but I want to start by saying that, as co-chair of the associate parliamentary manufacturing group, I believe that some of the concessions and planned changes affecting manufacturing industry in the autumn statement and the Budget were good for manufacturing, and were welcomed by people in the sector.
	The Budget was supposed to be about aspiration. I would like that aspiration to be lifted much higher. Our country is changing fast, and my irritation with Budgets and autumn statements is that there seems to be no time for politicians to get together in a sensible way and think strategically about policy making and the direction of our country. Our country is changing fast. The social and economic structure is changing rapidly and fundamentally within my lifetime. I was talking recently to students at Northampton university, and their knowledge of the social structure of Britain is amazing. I asked them what percentage of people worked in manufacturing and some of them said 30% or 40%. They had no idea that about 9.5% of people work in manufacturing; it is 10.5% in Huddersfield. Some 30% work in what people call public services—education, health and local government —and roughly 60% work in private services.
	Working in early years or later years care in private services means earning minimum wage or minimum wage plus. Working in retail and distribution also means earning minimum wage. No one can live the good life on minimum wage. I came into politics so that my constituents could live the good life. We all know the good life: we can put food on the table and have a nice house or flat, whether it is rented or bought through a mortgage. We all know the essential ingredients for a good life, but many of the good jobs that provided it, including in manufacturing, for example, have gone. They have been replaced by minimum wage jobs in retail and distribution, and in caring for patients.
	Universities, apprentices and education were mentioned only once in the Budget, and that is a real worry. I care passionately about giving young people jobs and opportunities, and 90% of firms do not take on apprentices. That is a real concern and it was not addressed enough in the Budget.
	Manufacturing is important in our country. My vision is of a high-skilled, high-paid Britain, but at the moment many of our people are heading towards a low-skilled, low-paid economy. In fact, those two can live side by
	side, and as Lord Heseltine told us, there is a grotesque change in our country that should be worrying every Member—the way in which London and the south-east are sucking the life out of our great towns and cities. The Budget has not addressed that, but we must address it if we are to get strategic policy right. This Budget did not do enough in that direction.

David Ward: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that demographic changes and the rising numbers of young people in certain communities make it even more important to have specific policies targeted at them in order to get them into workplaces and apprenticeships?

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman knows of my passion for skills training and apprenticeships. We should abolish unemployment until the age of 25. The Netherlands did it, so why cannot we? There was not enough in the Budget to address youth unemployment. When I was a shadow Home Affairs Minister, I knew the importance of putting money into deterring young people from crime. If someone is not a criminal by the age of 25, they do not become one, so if we keep young people in employment, training or education until then, they never get into inter-generational worklessness.
	Those are the sorts of bold policies I wanted in the Budget. I wanted higher aspiration and for my constituents to see us not lobbing insults at each other, but finding common cause to get the country ready for the 21st century and to make ours a society or high skills and high pay.

Bob Russell: The announcement to help first-time home buyers is great, but the wording needs to be tight to prevent it from being misused as a licence for people to buy a second home or to add further to the buy-to-rent racket that has led to so much misery for those trapped in the private rented sector, while others have become property millionaires by sponging on funds from housing benefits paid for by taxpayers to help people who cannot afford to buy or who cannot get a council house. It would make more sense to spend this money on new council houses—or social housing as it is now known.
	Next, there are mixed messages on alcohol tax and the coalition Government’s desire to tackle binge drinking and improve the health of the nation. One minute there is disagreement about whether there should be a minimum unit pricing of alcohol; then the Chancellor knocks 1p off the price of beer, rather than raising it by 3p, as would have happened under the ever-rising structure inherited from Labour. Thus the cost of a pint of beer has gone down by 4p on Labour’s pricing policy. This is not going to help tackle binge drinking or the growing health problems associated with excessive drinking.
	We need a variable price structure to help traditional, community and village public houses, which would fit well with the coalition Government’s localism agenda and the last Government’s sustainable communities legislation. Tax on beer and lager should be raised significantly in the mega-pubs and to stop irresponsible discount pricing in supermarkets, but reduced in our neighbourhood public houses, which are closing at a rate of 18 a week, owing, in no small part, to the lack of
	a level playing field. It is these neighbourhood hostelries that, in the main, are less likely to cause antisocial problems. On 1 November last year, I told the House:
	“We need to amend the tax levy on beer sold in our traditional public houses. We should have a tax-neutral approach to keep the Treasury happy and bring huge social benefits, including job retention and creation, rather than there being the loss of jobs that we continue to witness in the sector. Most publicans of neighbourhood and village public houses run responsible establishments. Their customers should be rewarded, not financially penalised because of the irresponsible marketing carried out by supermarkets and mega-drinking establishments.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2012; Vol. 552, c. 429.]
	On tackling binge drinking and the often associated incidents of people being injured, deliberately or accidentally, from broken glasses or beer bottles, sometimes used as weapons in fights, I urge the Chancellor to give a tax discount to brewers who put their product in plastic bottles—more accurately polycarbonate bottles. Likewise, I urge him to encourage major drinks venues to use the same material for the glasses in which alcoholic drinks are served. This would dramatically reduce the number of people taken to hospital for injuries caused by broken beer bottles and glasses. I refer the House to the ten-minute rule Bill in the name of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), which he brought in on 4 September last year. In his speech, he pointed out that according to the Home Office there are about 87,000 violent incidents involving glass every year. Just think how much it costs the NHS to deal with the vicious wounds inflicted.
	I urge the Chancellor to introduce a levy on football television rights. There is already too much money sloshing around in professional football, and it is only going to get worse. The next television deal will bring in £5 billion to inflate still further the obscene payments to premiership footballers and a big creaming off by their parasitic agents. I suggest a 20% levy, which the Chancellor could ring-fence and direct to be spent, as a £1 billion Olympic legacy, on school and grass-roots sport.
	Thank goodness we have not had a repeat of the pasty tax nonsense, although we are left with the unfairness of VAT being levied on the Subway toasted sandwich. I urge the Chancellor to try a little harder with his attempts to be the common man and axe the 20% tax on toasties and the like.
	Finally, how about this for a new income stream? I am grateful to Mr Richard Spendlove, doyen of the BBC evening radio airways across the eastern counties, for this suggestion. He points out that people will pay a small fortune for so-called personalised or elite registration number plates for vehicles, so why not, he asks, re-issue all those abandoned and forgotten numbers from the early years of motoring? Whenever such live number plates come on the market, they can fetch as much as £4,300, which was the asking price yesterday for registration number 88 VR. Mr Spendlove suggests that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency dusts down its records, identifies the tens of thousands of similar historic numbers that decades ago ended their days in the scrap yards of yesteryear and makes them available. The revenue generated could, I suggest, be used for road safety measures outside schools.
	If the Chancellor wants to be popular, he should adopt all those suggestions.

Michael Meacher: To fill a Budget with populist gimmicks while wholly ignoring the economic fundamentals that are remorselessly driving this country into a semi-permanent stagnation is to degrade the high office of Chancellor. The home loans scheme has more than a whiff of sub-prime about it, luring those without the means to buy a house they cannot afford and thereby fuelling a housing bubble. The child care voucher is limited to where both parents are working and offers five times more to the richest fifth than the poorest fifth. And the penny off a pint of beer does not do much to compensate for the 9% cut in real wages that the OBR now expects by 2015 compared with 2009.
	All this populist flannel misses the point. The real point is the total abandonment of any serious attempt in the Budget to tackle the fundamental problems of a desperately ailing economy. The tragedy for the people of this country is that during this depression we have Herbert Hoover at the controls, when the whole country is crying out for a Franklin Roosevelt. The harshly unrelenting facts of Britain’s inexorable decline speak for themselves. The OBR has been forced to halve the growth prediction this year, which it made only three months ago, from 1.2% to 0.6%. The deficit reduction—the ostensible aim of the whole brutal austerity machine—is going into reverse. The deficit now expected in 2014 is £120 billion—twice what it was expected to be just three years ago. By the time of the election in 2015, the Government will have been forced to borrow an extra £250 billion more than was forecast in 2010. With the plans in the Budget, any hope of the Chancellor’s achieving a firm and sustainable recovery is simply delusional.
	The heart of any Budget is its macro-economic strategy. Uniquely, in this Budget, there was no credible strategy. The Chancellor’s policy is still so destructive and the failure so massive that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the real objective is not deficit reduction, but to dismantle the public sector and shrink the state. One simply has to ask, “Why is the Chancellor so wilfully blind to an alternative?”
	An alternative must start from recognising that when the household and private sectors are deleveraging, there cannot be a recovery if the public sector does the same. It starts from recognising also that monetary policy alone—throwing £375 billion of quantitative easing at the banks, dropping interest rates to the floor and letting the exchange rate fall by 25%—cannot by itself produce growth; or, as Mark Carney would put it, not much “escape velocity” there. An alternative also starts from accepting that until the collapse in aggregate demand is tackled, there will be no recovery.
	How can that be engineered and paid for? There has to be, initially, a public sector-driven investment programme in house building, infrastructure, energy, transport and low-carbon technology until such time as the private sector can take over. That can be paid for by borrowing £30 billion at the dirt-cheap interest rate of 0.5%, or £150 million a year, which would rapidly pay for itself by taking back into employment 1 million workers, whom it is currently costing the country £10 billion to keep on the dole. However, this does not have to involve any public borrowing at all. The nationalised banks, RBS and Lloyds, could be instructed to prioritise lending
	to key infrastructure manufacturing projects, or the ultra-rich—the 14,000 millionaires who are about to get a £2,000 a week tax give-away—could be capital gains taxed on the £155 billion of gains they have made over the last three years, according to
	The Sunday Times
	. Or, instead of hosing down the banks with another huge tranche of quantitative easing, the money could be diverted to direct investment in industry.

Iain Stewart: I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to this Budget debate.
	We have heard much in contributions from both sides of the House about the level of the housing supply and the building that is going on. I am happy to report that in Milton Keynes we are getting on with it. We have 28,000 housing permissions in place and the Government have intervened to unlock some of the developments that have been gummed up in the system for too long, thanks in part to our friend the great crested newt—which, for an endangered species, seems to appear with remarkable frequency whenever there is a planning application. Those housing developments are not part of the hated regional spatial strategy, but are now part of a locally decided and locally managed strategy, which is just one component of our successful growth strategy—not the old, blunt housing targets, but economic growth alongside housing growth and infrastructure planning.
	I warmly welcome the measures in the Budget and earlier announcements that will underpin and enhance Milton Keynes’s position as the part of the country that will lead in the rebuilding our economy. All right hon. and hon. Members will want claim that their home area is the best and is leading the country, but I can cite three recent independent surveys that confirm that Milton Keynes is leading the way. In November, the Experian company ranked Milton Keynes as No. 1 in a survey of towns that will lead growth in this country. In each of the next four years, annual employment will grow by 2% and output will grow by 3%, and this is sustainable and balanced growth, not just in the retail and service sectors but in manufacturing and high-tech industries as well.
	More recently, March’s economic outlook report by PricewaterhouseCoopers put Milton Keynes’s growth ahead of the UK average. Mike Robinson, partner at PwC, said that
	“businesses should be encouraged to capitalise on the expected upturn in consumer spending and opportunities created by local infrastructure investment.”
	Finally, just the other week the business location index—part of the inward investment guide to England—ranked Milton Keynes as the best place in Britain to do business, based on its scoring highly on economic, human resources, environmental and infrastructure indicators.
	Companies House records show that more than 2,000 new businesses started up in Milton Keynes in the last year, up 10% on the year before. Our inward investment is booming. Milton Keynes is already home to 700 international companies, and that is growing. We have a winning formula that is based on our local factors and the UK’s competitive tax strategy. Our strong position will be underpinned and enhanced by the policies announced in the Budget and other measures. The city deal and the Heseltine proposal for a single
	pot of money to decentralise decision making will help, boosting our infrastructure, particularly with the east-west rail project, which will link Milton Keynes to Oxford and, ultimately, Cambridge and is forecast to generate 12,000 jobs in the local region.
	Our apprenticeship schemes are doing well. We have already doubled the number of apprenticeships locally to 2,000—that will increase further—and not just in traditional sectors, but in accountancy, law and manufacturing. That will develop our skills base for the future and make us even more attractive to inward investors. Finally, the policies to help people buy their first home and go further up the housing ladder will ensure that our housing strategy is linked to what we need locally. Of course there are many challenges ahead, but Milton Keynes is doing well. This Budget gives us the tools to get on with the job.
	Let me finish by referring to the contribution from the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway). He criticised the Government for talking about sowing seeds in frozen weather. A horticulturalist will tell us that it is not only possible to sow seeds on frozen ground, but often desirable, because that can lead to the healthiest growth.

William McCrea: I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this Budget debate.
	Like all right hon. and hon. Members, we waited to hear the Chancellor’s proposals that would kick-start the economy, lifting it out of the despair in which it finds itself. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government opened today’s debate, outlining Government policy in the Budget for a house building programme. I appreciate that our constituents across the United Kingdom have a difficultly in getting on to the housing ladder. Having listened to my colleagues here in England, I can say that there is undoubtedly a social housing build problem, with affordable housing described as a national emergency.
	Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland have a difficulty in offering proposals to resolve the housing problem, because housing is devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, the Chancellor has offered some hope to homebuyers in the Budget, with interest-free loans of up to 20% of the value of a new build property. I appreciate that there is some confusion about the proposal, but I trust that homebuyers seeking to get on the housing ladder will not be lost in the midst of a policy that seems not to have been thought out before being announced.
	On Budget day, my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) rightly welcomed a number of acceptable announcements. He endorsed the decision to protect Government front-line services in health and education. He also acknowledged that the Government had recognised the key role that capital infrastructure enhancement plays in stimulating economic growth. That is important not only for short-term economic growth, but for our country’s long-term prosperity. However, we face a serious problem, with little or no economic growth across the United Kingdom but, sadly, no sign of it changing in the near future. We need to stimulate our economy. The Secretary of State told the House today that we needed to give business a leg up.
	To do so, we need to bring confidence back into the business community. Businesses need to be sure that the Government have a plan to take us out of the mess we are in. No one can deny that there is a lack of confidence. As a result, those who have money are not spending or making the investments in industry that we need so much in our economy.

Anne-Marie Morris: Has the hon. Gentleman read the latest report from the Federation of Small Businesses bureau, which says that the level of enthusiasm and belief that we are heading towards a recovery is higher than it ever has been? Confidence is at an all-time high.

William McCrea: I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. I think that if we really went out into the community, we would still find a lack of confidence. If confidence were out there, those who have the money—and some certainly do—would be investing. We need to get those people to spend that money within our economy. On the other side, there is not only a lack of confidence, but a lack of finance. Small and medium-sized businesses are being starved and crippled by denial of finance.
	I do not believe that we should talk down our economy, but we must be realistic about the economic situation in our United Kingdom. We want inward investment and we need to kick-start the economy. I would certainly like to see the Chancellor giving more encouragement. Many businesses are crying out for finance. They go along to the banks, but no matter how many times the Chancellor and even the Prime Minister have assured us that they are encouraging the banks to give them the money, that needed money is not getting into the coffers of SMEs. We have got to do more about that.
	My constituents welcome the cancellation of the 3p increase in fuel duty, which would have been an additional tax burden not only on businesses, but on virtually every other person and family in our community.

Gregory Campbell: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Chancellor were in the business of freezing one duty and reducing another, it might have been more cost-effective and beneficial to the economy if he had frozen the beer duty and reduced the fuel duty?

William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion. In fact, that suggestion would have been profitable for the economy, especially bearing in mind that we in Northern Ireland already pay higher fuel prices than any other region of the United Kingdom. We also welcome the low cost of borrowing from the banks over a sustained period, but I have to say that there is another side to that because we should have some sympathy for many pensioners and other savers who depend on savings to supplement their income. They are suffering greatly from the very low interest rates.
	I acknowledge the reduction of corporation tax to 20%, ensuring a single rate for businesses in April 2015. In welcoming this step, however, I would ask the Chancellor when corporation tax is going to be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, particularly bearing in mind the fact that we compete with the Irish Republic, which has a 12.5% rate. We want to be able to compete on a
	level playing field, or better, to bring inward investment into our Province. Northern Ireland’s population has a strong work ethic, but we need policies that will build confidence, bring that inward investment and help industries in the local community to invest in the future.
	Air passenger duty is another issue. I believe it is detrimental to our economy. I acknowledge that APD exists for transatlantic flights from Northern Ireland, but we need to challenge this, so I call on the Chancellor to reconsider his position. There is anger, too, over the millionaires’ tax cuts, while at the same time there is the hurt over the bedroom tax. Where will our constituents find the houses for the downsizing? It is easy to talk about these imaginary houses, but that offers no relief to families that face turmoil in getting a roof over their heads.

Oliver Colvile: Before I go any further, I should like to declare that I retain an interest in a small communications company, which I set up before I was elected to this place, that gives advice to developers on how to manage planning procedures and the planning system. For the last 20 years, I have been following the whole issue of development and planning.
	I very much welcome the Chancellor’s proposals to introduce “help to buy”, which I hope will stimulate our economy as well. To my mind, however, the planning process is not the issue that has created many of the problems for development. We need to unlock credit availability and make mortgages much more available, especially for those first-time buyers who cannot raid the bank of mum and dad.
	I am not going to pretend that I am an economist or that I necessarily understand banking regulation or the complexities that go with it, but I think that we cannot ignore the reasons why we are in this mess. To my mind, it was Bill Clinton and the American Administration who, wanting to encourage the less well off, especially among the Afro-Caribbean community in the United States, to buy their own homes, consequently created a sub-prime market in the 1990s. By weakening financial regulation, the US and British Governments created a new class of specialised mortgage lenders that subcontracted their liability. By failing to put up interest rates, the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England allowed the housing market to overheat. That is the reason why we created this major crash.
	In 2001, when the Labour Government created a budget deficit, they continued to make our problems much more disastrous than they needed to be, and they failed to control public expenditure, adding to our financial woes. In addition, the Bank of England failed to manage our inflation target and our monetary framework. Not only the Treasury, but the Office for Budgetary Responsibility have some way to go because they have failed to get their forecasts right in the process.
	As my hon. Friends know, the Bank of England is responsible for managing the inflation target, but it is the Treasury that actually sets that target in the first place. For the last two years, I have been banging on and asking how those criteria have been set, but I have failed to get a reply. Plainly, something has gone very wrong indeed. The Bank of England is consistently failing to hit its inflation target. In producing a Budget, monetary policy cannot be divorced from the economics.
	In the years before the credit crunch, monetary conditions were too loose. There was an asset price bubble, house prices rose very sharply and if the banking crises had not erupted, general inflation would have been an even more serious problem. The Bank of England accommodated a serious asset price bubble with a huge and unsustainable level of domestic household debt. People have rightly criticised bank and financial market regulation, but much less attention has been given to defective central banking and overly loose monetary conditions that made possible the household borrowing and financial leverage.
	I believe that the time has now come when the role of the central banks should be scrutinised properly. We must learn the lessons, the limitations and the defects of the inflation target regime. There has been a serious lack of transparency in the way the Bank of England conducts monetary policy. The details of its forecasting model, the assumptions it uses and the forecasts it generates have not been publicly available. Its public documents have been disappointing in respect of their clarity and presentation, and I am afraid that the inflation report has failed. I am firmly of the view that we need a proper review of the inflation target, how it is set out and how the central bank conducts its business.

Yasmin Qureshi: They say, “If you tell a big enough lie and repeat it constantly, people will believe it”—and that is what the Tory-led Government have done. We are constantly told that the last Labour Government left the biggest debt in the developed world. That is an odd thing to say when the Chancellor admitted to the Treasury Committee in 2011 that he did not even know that the UK had the lowest debt in the G7.
	Of course the UK will have a higher debt and deficit than some other countries, and Government Members often make a comparison with Greece, but Greece has a totally different economy from ours; we are the sixth largest in the world. Of course our debt will be higher than Greece’s, but the real figure to look at—one that relates to economic competence—is the ratio of GDP to national debt.
	Let me remind the House—I know Government Members have a collective amnesia about this—that in 1997, when the Labour Government came to power, the national debt was 42% of GDP; after 11 years of the Labour Government and before the global recession of 2008, the ratio of GDP to national debt was 35%. That is a reduction of 11%, and it was not achieved by a Government who were financially incompetent. In fact, that Government achieved an even greater reduction than the Conservatives.
	The second claim that we hear is that Labour created the biggest deficit in the developed world by overspending. If that was the case, why did Germany, Japan, the United States and other similar economies have a problem? Why did they have banking crises? Why were they not in deficit? We know the answer. We know that there were global economic problems. We know that the financial crisis began in the United States with the sub-prime mortgages. In fact, it was a former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who took a bold initiative, saving our banking systems and, subsequently, saving half a million jobs as well.
	Those are not just my views. The International Monetary Fund concluded that
	“the UK experienced an increase in the deficit as result of a large loss in output/GDP caused by the global banking crisis and not even as result of the bank bailouts, fiscal stimulus and bringing forward of capital spending. It’s basic economics: when output falls the deficit increases.”
	The deficit increase was not due to any of the actions taken by the Labour Government. In fact, all those actions made the economy better, and saved more jobs. In contrast, this Government’s policies over the past three years have done nothing to help the economy to grow.
	Another reason for our financial loss was the fact that we are one of the main financial centres in the world. Given that there was a global banking crisis, of course we were likely to take the hit more than other countries. We should also bear in mind that up to 2008, while Labour was in power, the actual borrowing costs were low. Indeed, they are still low. That is because in the United Kingdom our bonds are strong and are performing well, because people know that the Bank of England is there to step in if there is any problem, and, of course, because over the last 300 years the UK has never defaulted on its debt. The Government try to blame austerity, saying, “We must introduce all these measures because we need to balance the books,” but the truth is that they are using austerity as a justification for downsizing the state, which, in ideological terms, the Conservative-led government have always wanted to do.
	Even the Chancellor’s budget deficit programme is not working. Everyone knows that a budget deficit occurs when expenditure exceeds income, but one way of securing income is taxation, direct or indirect. When people are being laid off and are not working, they are paying no taxes. They are having to be supported by a benefits system, which is why—

Nigel Evans: Order. I am terribly sorry, but the hon. Lady’s time is up.

Paul Uppal: It is not normally my habit to comment on earlier speeches, and I had intended to stick to the main ethos of what I was going to say, but I feel that I must draw something to the attention of the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). She began by talking about GDP ratios. Let me gently remind her that during the early years of the last Labour Government, they stuck to Conservative spending principles. Does she remember golden economic rules, and the end of boom and bust?

Yasmin Qureshi: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Uppal: I will gladly give way.

Yasmin Qureshi: Eleven years later, it was the Labour party that reduced the GDP ratio to 35%.

Paul Uppal: No; not 11 years later. [Interruption.] If Labour Members disagree, perhaps they will recall the views of Hamish McRae, the economist who writes for The Independent, who has commented on the issue at length. However, I digress.
	The essence of today’s debate concerns housing policy. I am glad that the Government have confirmed that they will make up to £12 billion of guarantees available to support more than £130 billion of mortgages for new-build and existing homes in January for three years. I also welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to realigning the Government’s policy on the private rented sector by increasing the £200 million build to rent fund to more than £1 billion, and providing a £225 million funding boost to support a further 15,000 affordable homes in England by 2015.
	Members on both sides of the House have made various points, but it might be wise at this juncture to refer not to politicians, but to housing and property experts. I do not know whether anyone has taken the time to read this week’s edition of Estates Gazette, which is the bible when it comes to real estate and housing issues. According to Richard Threlfall, KPMG’s head of infrastructure, building and construction,
	“the Chancellor has thrown the UK house building industry a new lifeline.”
	Nick Jopling, executive director of property at Grainger plc and chairman of the Urban Land Institute’s UK Residential Council, added:
	“Stimulating the housing market through further mortgage support…will help improve transactions and liquidity in the market, which has for some time been constrained.”
	Stewart Baseley, executive chairman of the Home Builders Federation, said:
	“A lack of affordable mortgage availability remains the biggest constraint on housing supply”.
	He also said:
	“Government must be praised for its attempts to stimulate activity”.
	Gerry Hughes, senior director at GVA, said:
	“We welcome the healthy five fold increase in the Build to Rent fund. This will undoubtedly assist a sector that is struggling severely.”
	I will cut my quotations short at this point, but let me emphasise that those are not the views of politicians, but the views of property professionals.
	I think that last week’s Budget statement was seminal in many respects, and that the opening line was crucial. The Chancellor said:
	“This is a Budget for people who aspire to work hard and get on. It is a Budget for people who realise there are no easy answers to problems built up over many years—just the painstaking work of putting right what went so badly wrong.”—[Official Report, 20 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 931.]
	I believe that blue-collar workers out there, and the general population, understand the challenging economic climate, and agree that we need to tackle the deficit. The Chancellor stated that it had now been cut by one third, not one quarter, and that according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, we are on course to fulfil our fiscal mandate. However, tackling the deficit, although right and necessary, cannot be our only message. We need to reinforce and go further in regard to some of our flagship policies, taking low-paid workers out of tax and freezing fuel duty. Above all, blue-collar workers want to see more money in their wallets at the end of the month, and I believe that we are on course to achieve that. The Budget demonstrates that our priorities—the Government’s priorities—are in the right place.
	The Leader of the Opposition often comes to the Dispatch Box and accuses the Government of being “out of touch”. The Budget shows that we are on the side of workers, of families, of people who want to get on and make a better life for themselves. It shows that the Government have their priorities at heart—the right priorities. Our priorities are in the right place when a Budget raises the personal tax allowance to £10,000 from April 2014, which means a tax cut for 24 million people. As a result, some people will pay £700 less in income tax than they did in 2010, and 2.7 million will be taken out of tax altogether. Our priorities are in the right place when fuel duty is being frozen once again, which makes this the longest freeze for over 20 years. Pump prices will be 13p lower than they would have been as a result of Labour’s plans, leaving the average motorist with £170 more in his or her pocket. We are helping the aspirational workers, but we are also helping the entrepreneurs, the risk-takers and the employers. The small businessman has faced, and still faces, numerous challenges. Things are not easy, but, as a Government, we can help to make things easier, and help to make those businesses succeed. The fall in fuel duty will help them, too, but more importantly the package of business reforms will make a real difference in the pockets of businesses up and down the backbone of this country.
	We will cut the jobs tax for every business by £2,000 in 2014. We are taking people out of tax: 450,000 small businesses—one third of all employers—will pay no jobs tax at all. I hope the Chancellor takes similar steps to increase the allowance in future Budgets. Taking more small businesses out of paying the jobs tax will provide a greater incentive to take on more workers during the continuing long-term rebalancing of our economy.
	In talking about entrepreneurs and employers, I would like to commend the Government for cutting corporation tax even further. Under the previous Government, business taxes were at 28%. Now we have the lowest rate in the G7, and next month it will fall to 23%. When it reaches 20% in April 2015, we will have the lowest rate in the G20. This is great news for people who wish to invest and bring jobs to this country.
	This is a Budget for aspiration and ambition and for all those who wish to work hard.

Jonathan Reynolds: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal). He asked us about the debt to GDP percentage ratio. Looking at the 1996-97 financial year, after 10 years of a Labour Government we not only had a lower debt to GDP percentage ratio, but our deficit was lower.

Paul Uppal: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s response, but does he not accept that for the first half of that Labour Government they stuck to Conservative spending plans laid down by the previous Conservative Chancellor?

Jonathan Reynolds: In the rare years since the end of the second world war when there has been a surplus, not a deficit, it is Labour Governments who have traditionally delivered that. That proves we are much better at the national finances, as well as at providing for the people of this country.

David Wright: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jonathan Reynolds: I will; I am getting a lot of extra time, here.

David Wright: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Conservatives were wedded to our spending plans right up until the global recession hit? They have never explained which action they would not have taken to save the banks.

Jonathan Reynolds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Just last week, when listening to the Chancellor deliver his fourth Budget and its dreadful assessment of the state of the British economy, it was hard to believe that if everything had gone to plan for him and we had managed to pull off what he proposed in the emergency Budget, we would be well down the road to balancing the books and debt would be peaking this year as a percentage of GDP. Such a plan now seems nothing more than a fantasy.
	Larry Summers, the distinguished American economist and Treasury Secretary under President Clinton, told a conference I attended last year about the response he gives when asked what one event would make him completely reassess everything he believes to be true about modern economics. He said that since 2010, his answer has been, “If the UK Government manage to bring about a rapid recovery through their deficit reduction plan.” I thought that was quite a bold statement when I first heard it, but of course, Mr Summers knew what he was talking about.
	When the Chancellor took office in 2010 and first came to the House, he said we would have five years of pain to eradicate the deficit, but then we would have done it. Last week, he came back to the House to say that there will be another five years of pain, and then we will have eradicated the deficit—maybe. There has been almost no progress, but the pain for our constituents has been very real.
	Stripping away all the partisanship in this Chamber, there are surely Government Members who thought last week, “What if we had done things slightly differently?” The truth behind all that misplaced rhetoric in 2010 about the UK being on the verge of bankruptcy or that we would be the next Greece, all but destroyed business and consumer confidence, before the measures in the emergency Budget were even on the statute book. When the Government’s agenda did bite, the combination of that, the collapse of confidence they had already fostered and the worsening eurozone produced an economic disaster. We all see the casualties of that every day in our constituencies. We needed more from this Budget.
	There are three issues I would like to address in the brief time available to me, the first of which is manufacturing. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that this Government have done some good things in that regard. I am pleased that there are Members on both sides of the House who, like me, are passionate about manufacturing, a sector in which a fifth of my constituents still work. However, the Budget speech made no mention of the “march of the makers”, and it did not address the two main issues that still remain: that such businesses cannot borrow money when they need to; and that they feel that the Government do not give them sufficient
	strategic direction, be it on renewable energy, High Speed 2, aviation policy or anything else. I hope the Chancellor has had time to read the excellent report by the former director of the Institute of Directors, Sir George Cox, on short-termism in the UK economy. I hope he will take on board its main recommendation: that we need to develop a coherent and workable modern industrial strategy if we are to remain competitive. I agree with Government Members when they say we are in a global race, but at the moment we do not even have a map of the course.
	Secondly, despite the job creation record that Government Members like to emphasise, unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, is still a major problem. We know enough about the Work programme to know that it has not been a success. Due to the combination of a lack of jobs generally and an inadequate payments system, it has not had the impact it should have had. We had on the statute book a range of measures that were getting people back into work; the future jobs fund, for example, should never have been dropped. Much of the Government’s borrowing—they announced £245 billion on top of their 2010 figure—is paying for the costs of failure. It is not unreasonable to wonder what might have happened if we had invested a fraction of that sum in putting people back into work.
	My third point is about the equity of the Government’s agenda and how things have been shared, because the lower down the income scale people are, the harder they have been hit. The contrast between the tax cut for millionaires in the next few days and the bedroom tax is startling. The latter is a tax on people struggling with their child’s disability, struggling with their own or their partner’s ill health, or struggling to be a good parent in the event of the breakdown of their relationship. The fact that it may lead to higher costs for the Exchequer, as families are forced to move into higher-cost private accommodation, flies in the face of all reason. On this measure, more than any other, we need another famous Budget U-turn.
	Let me deal with some specific Budget measures. I welcome the concessions on fuel duty, which does have a real impact on household income, and the scrapping of the beer tax escalator, which will benefit real ale towns such as Stalybridge. The nod towards the Heseltine report is also good, but it could have gone so much further. Had the Government pursued the previous Government’s Total Place community budgeting reforms, they could have improved public services while saving billions of pounds. However, Lord Heseltine’s logic that regional leaders are best placed to determine spending which will lever in private sector investment is surely correct.
	I also welcome the commitment to spend 0.7% of our GDP on international aid, and here I have the opportunity to qualify remarks that got me on to page 2 of The Sun a few weeks ago. I am a supporter of international aid, but we have to acknowledge that it is contentious to increase it when our constituents are facing hardship. I just want the focus to be on what aid will achieve, rather than simply patting ourselves on the back for what goes into it. That is a reasonable way to build support for aid among the British people.
	There is no doubt that whoever was in charge right now would face difficult choices about where the pain that the British people face should lie. However, the deal we have to offer them is that the pain will be worth it,
	and that the distribution of that pain will be equitable and will show empathy with people’s lives. On all those criteria the Chancellor has failed, and it is surely time for a new approach.

Richard Drax: In the short time I have—five minutes is a very short time—I will just rattle through a few points.
	I welcome a large part of this Budget—it is very good news. It sounds more like a Conservative Budget, which is why the press have, on the whole, welcomed it; I believe that the Chancellor was transformed into a former Prime Minister, because there was a feeling that this is, at last, what the country needs. My question to our Front-Bench team, which they can perhaps answer later, is this: why has it taken nearly three years for us to do this? I suspect that their answer will be, “Because we are in a coalition.” I am a little tired of hearing that. I want a lot more blue narrative and less coalition narrative, because that is the way forward on sorting out our economy.
	I welcome the reduction in taxes. Raising the income tax threshold to £10,000 is a wonderful way to go, but we should go further; how many constituents have we heard say, “If I do a bit more work, I will lose my benefits”? Let us give them income they have earned—let them keep it. Let us keep on that path, encouraging people back to work and off welfare. That is the right direction to take.
	The beer escalator has gone—hurrah! A great friend of mine, who sadly had a heart attack, used to run the Hall and Woodhouse brewery in Blandford and before he died he said to me, “Richard, when you get into the House, please try to get rid of this beer escalator because we are losing thousands of jobs across the country as a consequence.” It is now gone—well done the coalition Government. I am absolutely delighted about that, and, in addition, 1p was taken off the pint of beer so we could all celebrate a bit on the night.
	I am also delighted about the freezing of fuel duty. I am not going to be partisan and say that it would be much higher if we still had a Labour Government; it is frozen and that is good. But we should go much further and cut into that vast amount of tax that the Government take off the normal man and woman in this country, who, in many cases, simply cannot afford to fill up their car—the situation is ludicrous.
	On the ceramics industry, I am delighted that the levy has been removed. May I put in a small request on behalf of the aggregate industry? A constituent of mine is paying £2 a tonne to take aggregate out of the ground, which is costing him £160,000 a year. That is a tax on a small family business employing 48 people in South Dorset that cannot afford that huge burden. Dare I say it—common sense must replace green taxes when jobs will be lost.
	My concern is about the Government’s planned equitable loan, or mortgage guarantee—whatever we call it, those are the two arms of the new policy. I hope it works and that more houses are built as a result, but I am concerned that taxpayers’ money is being used to guarantee mortgages. If that goes wrong, we will not want to carry it with us in the years to come.
	As for solutions, as a Conservative I believe that the supply side must be boosted. We must cut taxes further. As I have mentioned, we must get more people back to work by raising the welfare threshold. I believe that that is working extremely well in Sweden, although it went much against public opinion. We are still spending more than we earn and although we lecture the Opposition about what they did, we are doing the same thing. We must live within our means. We cannot go on printing money. Billions of pounds are being printed because there is no charge on interest. That is an inflationary move and could lead in months or years to come to interest rates rising. If that happens, our constituents, businesses and councils will be bust. It is as simple as that. We must tell the country the truth. We are in a hole and we must stop spending money we simply do not have.
	Lastly—how time flies—we must consider the ring-fencing of budgets. Surely austere times are not the time to ring-fence budgets. If any budget should be ring-fenced, it should be defence, in my view, but even the Ministry of Defence must be looked at. All budgets should be open to consideration and, if needs be, to being changed. On the whole, I welcome the Budget, but we have a lot further to go—and, please, may we have a lot more blue narrative in the future?

Jonathan Edwards: The UK economy continues to bump along the bottom with little or no growth in GDP and the revised OBR figures of only 0.6% growth for this year was a dark cloud over the whole Budget. In Wales, the situation is bleak, with the Office for National Statistics reporting 8,000 fewer jobs in the Welsh economy in the three months up to January. The austerity strategy set out in the 2010 comprehensive spending review aimed at the elimination of the deficit by the end of the Parliament has failed. The fiscal position is considerably worse than that forecast three years ago and worse even than that forecast this time last year—and that is with nearly 80% of the cuts yet to be delivered. We estimate that up to another 50,000 public sector jobs will lost in Wales in the coming years, following the 24,000 already lost. The Budget noted that Wales will get £161 million towards capital spending, but that conveniently masks the fact that there has already been a 40% cut to the capital spend budget from the CSR and that the re-allocation announced last week would come from strained revenue budgets.
	Plaid Cymru welcomes some of the measures announced in the Budget. We welcome the freeze in fuel duty, but argue that it would be much better to have a long- term solution based on a stabilising mechanism. The announcement on when the £10,000 income tax personal allowance will be reached is welcome, as that is a long-standing Plaid Cymru policy. The £3 billion in infrastructure spending is also to be welcomed although, admittedly, it is a fraction of what is needed and was more of a political gesture than a serious economic intervention. We support the announcement of the introduction of an allowance of £2,000 a year from April 2014 for all businesses and charities to be offset against their employers’ national insurance contributions, as it will give businesses incentives to take on extra workers. We also support the move to change the terms of reference of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England to include a growth target. That is
	potentially the most significant announcement of the Budget and, again, is something that we have long called for.
	I have some concerns about the second-home subsidy, not least because it would fuel another house price boom and after the inevitable crash, there will be serious consequences for the public finances.
	There are several measures that Plaid Cymru would have liked to have seen included in the Budget. We wanted the Government to use the Budget and subsequent Finance Bill to implement the recommendations of the UK Government’s Commission on Devolution in Wales. We would have wanted the Government immediately to set about devolving minor taxes as well the income tax-sharing arrangements. We want the Treasury to implement the findings of the Welsh Government-commissioned Morgan report on devolved business rates, to incentivise Welsh local authorities to develop their local economy and expand their tax base. I will be tabling amendments to that effect to the Finance Bill, to test the will of the House.
	The precedent for devolving taxes via the Budget was set with the devolution of air passenger duty to Northern Ireland in last year’s Finance Bill. On Thursday evening, I was amazed to see a senior Labour Assembly Member on the ITV political programme “Sharp End” dismiss the Finance Bill as an appropriate legislative vehicle to implement Silk. It just shows how visionless Labour has become in my country.
	The measures I have just outlined would immediately trigger the borrowing powers—[Interruption.] That is the policy of the Labour party; they want borrowing powers in Wales. How will we get them without devolving fiscal levers? That just shows that Labour Members have no ideas.
	The measures I outlined would immediately trigger the borrowing powers agreed during the bilateral negotiations between the Welsh and UK Governments, and are essential if Wales is to invest in infrastructure and create the economic boost that is so badly needed. We also want Wales to receive powers over corporation tax, as advocated by Silk, if they are devolved to Northern Ireland. Today, I read with interest in the Financial Times about the unanimous lobby for those powers in Northern Ireland, and the strong letter sent to the Prime Minister by the Northern Ireland CBI.
	The tax cut for those earning more than £3,000, due to come into force next week, should have been overturned in the Budget. The renewal of Trident should be scrapped, thus saving £100 billion over its lifetime. A financial transaction tax, which would raise up to £20 billion per annum according to the Institute for Public Policy Research, should have been introduced. Plaid Cymru would have liked to see a mansion tax on domestic properties.
	The Chancellor is boxed in by his own rhetoric and has run out of ideas. It is clear that the Treasury’s only economic strategy is to build up the barricades and hope that the rock star central banker can use monetary policy to turn things around.

Anne-Marie Morris: I welcome the Budget. It is a Budget for business and I am pleased that it is particularly good for micro-businesses, which have done especially well.
	Today, we are talking principally about housing, where what the Government have done is commendable, but unless people have jobs and earn good salaries they will not be able to take up those good initiatives. The highlight is the employment allowance. The national insurance win is £2,000 off the employer’s NI bill. In my book, the Government could not have done anything better. That really plays to the agenda of micro-businesses. It enables them to get started. A very small business will be able to take on its first employee.
	Many of the smallest businesses are run by women, so the reduction in child care costs in 2015, when 20% of the costs for the under-12s will be met by Government, is very welcome. For the first time, there is something that will help women running their own business; it will help the self-employed, not just those who are employed.
	Many small businesses are in rural communities, and fuel is a huge issue. The fuel duty freeze is absolutely what this country needs. In September, petrol prices will stay the same and that is welcome. Clearly, we need to look at making fuel duty and the price of petrol predictable. Perhaps in a future Budget there will be an opportunity to look at a proper stabiliser, whereby when the price of fuel goes up, the tax comes down. Stability is vital, especially for small businesses. Likewise, a rural rebate on fuel duty would be welcome in some of our more out of the way communities.
	The measure that will take corporation tax down to 20% faster and align it with the small companies rate is very welcome. I encourage the Chancellor and his team to look at what we could do to make that even easier for the very smallest companies. Perhaps he would support my all-party group working with the Office of Tax Simplification on the concept of a new flat tax for the smallest businesses, through the format of the business structure, so that whether it is a company, a sole trader or a partnership, there is a new mechanism. I appreciate that corporation tax as currently structured cannot fall below 20% because it would then be at the same rate as income tax, which would give rise to all sorts of problems, including people rushing to incorporate when it was not the right thing for them.
	Here is another thought for the Chancellor for his next Budget: for the very smallest businesses, business rates can really cause a problem. I should like to see in the next Budget an extension of small business rate relief until the election, as that would be extraordinarily welcome. The Government could also look at trying to show those businesses that are paying business rates what they get for their money. The Chancellor and his team have been keen to enable those of us who pay income tax to see where that income tax is going, but the same argument ought to be true of business rates. Many business people say to me, “But I don’t get my bins emptied in the same way that I can see is the case if I pay council tax.” We should look at where those business rates go, and show the value for money that businesses obtain in paying them.
	I had an interesting meeting last week with the valuation office. I asked it whether there was a way of making the valuation process fairer and, as I understood the explanation, it appears that the technology is there to enable revaluation to take place more frequently. A frustration that businesses share with me is that because of the time line—there is a five-year gap—there is a big difference when the valuation is made and when people
	have to pay the new rate. I would not wish to underestimate the challenge, and I appreciate that the multiplier makes that not entirely straightforward.
	That, for me, is the key to getting the country to move forward—helping our micro-businesses—and I welcome what the Chancellor’s team have introduced. I am delighted. Well done, and I hope that the Chancellor will perhaps take on board some of the thoughts that I have set out for the next Budget.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am very pleased to be able to participate in this debate, not least to demonstrate how little the Budget will do for the economy of the north-east. We need no further evidence of the failure of the Government’s economic policies than the forecast on growth and GDP outlined by the Office for Budget Responsibility.
	In June 2010, the OBR forecast that growth in the UK would be 2.8%. In fact, as we know, it was minus 0.1 %. We have also recently heard that the growth forecast this year, bearing in mind that it is only March, has been cut in half from 1.2% to 0.6%. Given all of that, the Government needed to shake off their complacency and take responsibility for the flatlining economy that they have created. They should introduce measures that would support growth, both nationally and in areas that are suffering most under this incompetent Government, such as County Durham.
	The number of job seekers in my Durham constituency has fallen by just 69 in a year, but it is still up by 450 since the general election. Some 25% of those claimants are young people, unable to take their first step on the career ladder. What is equally worrying is the types of jobs that have been created compared with those that have been lost. Information that I have received from the House of Commons Library shows that the new jobs that have been created are predominantly non-skilled or low-skilled. At the same time, the number of jobs in skilled trades and administration is falling—by 2,000 in the last period. That shows a worrying trend of downskilling the north-east economy, just as we need to up our game to compete with emerging economies internationally.
	What did the Budget do to rectify that? Absolutely nothing. The North East chamber of commerce said:
	“The Government has fallen short of providing the raft of measures that businesses and investors need in order to kick-start growth”.
	Ed Cox, director of IPPR North, said:
	“George Osborne has missed an opportunity today to enable the North to play its part in leading us out of our economic stagnation.”
	We can look at two aspects of that, the first of which is housing in the north-east. Again, we heard a number of lip-service announcements made in the Budget. I am pleased that the Government finally seem to be waking up to the fact that there is a housing crisis, but they appear to be stoking demand for housing, rather than looking at how to increase supply urgently and drastically. The Chancellor—he is probably the only one who thinks this—says that the fundamental overhaul of planning laws is helping homes to be built and businesses to expand. I think that he is wrong on both counts. House
	building is falling and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said earlier, so is the speed with which planning decisions are being made. Research from the House of Commons Library confirms that no peacetime Government since the 1920s have presided over fewer housing completions than this Government have over the past two years. And it is getting worse; house starts fell in 2012 by 11% to below 100,000.
	It does not get any better when we look at infrastructure. In their first three years, this Tory-led Government have spent £7.7 billion less in capital investment compared with the plans inherited from Labour, and over the course of this Parliament they are set to spend £2.1 billion less on capital investment than would have been spent under Labour’s plans. That has knock-on effects for constituencies such as mine, which are getting practically no investment whatsoever in the basic infrastructure to support either the housing that is urgently needed or the new roads and transport links that are necessary if we are to grow the economy.
	It also does not get any better for families in my constituency. The measures in the Budget relating to child care will not come into effect until 2015. Families in my constituency need jobs, growth and hope now.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
	Last week’s Budget was a successful one politically. It worked because it identified that the cost of living affects all our constituents. I particularly welcome the fact that the Chancellor, by getting rid of the beer duty escalator and checking the fuel duty escalator put in by the previous Government, for example, recognised the rising cost of living for many of our constituents.
	Before proceeding, I would like to refer to some of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who, as we all know, was a prominent member of the previous Labour Government. He mentioned the fact that the OBR had consistently failed in its forecasts over the course of this Parliament. He also mentioned the fact that we are borrowing at record levels. That is all true. But what he did not mention, or make any apology for, was the share of responsibility that he and the previous Government must admit to in the creation of our largest peacetime deficit. People will look back on the period between 2001 and 2007 in this country as one of the most, if not the most, profligate and irresponsible periods in the management of our public finances.

David Wright: If that is the case, why did the Conservative party support the Labour Government’s spending plans throughout that period? The Conservatives stopped supporting the spending plans only just before the global financial crisis. Can the hon. Gentleman explain what action he would not have taken to save the banks?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I happen to be a balanced budget Conservative. Even at the time, before I was elected to this House, I completely disavowed any move to stick to Labour’s spending. I thought that it was a big mistake at the time and I am quite happy to say that in this House. I think that it was entirely a mistake to do what
	the Labour Government did and run deficits at a time when the economy was growing at 3%. It was absolute madness to run deficits at 3% of GDP when the economy itself was growing at 3%. Not even the most starry-eyed Keynesian has ever suggested that we should be running deficits while the economy was expanding. As a direct consequence of this irresponsible period, in 2010 we were left with the largest peacetime deficit and the highest deficit-to-GDP ratio of any of the OECD countries. That period of stewardship marks the ultimate disgrace of the Labour party in terms of managing the national economy. We have now reached the point where we are borrowing £100 billion a year and the national debt is going up, as people have mentioned. As a consequence of this high level of deficit financing, we are going to leave a national debt in years to come that is higher than it has been for generations.
	What serious proposals have Labour Members come up with during this four-day debate? Their answer is simply to borrow more money and to spend more money. They would accelerate our downward path and we would end up, as one economic commentator has said, with Club Med levels of debt similar to those of Portugal and Greece—without, unfortunately, the good weather. That is what Labour Members are leading this country towards. Members of the public will be absolutely astounded that Labour Members have expressed not one shred of remorse, regret or acknowledgement. They live in a world in which they did nothing wrong. Everything has been blamed on the coalition Government, who have tried to clear up the appalling mess—[Interruption.] Labour Members are chuntering from sedentary positions. They do not like to hear the facts.
	People up and down the country realise and acknowledge that the Labour Government were entirely irresponsible. What solutions have the Labour Members come up with? Absolutely none. It is embarrassing to listen to some of their speeches. They talk about more growth despite the fact that the eurozone is flat on its back. They talk about more investment despite the fact that we are borrowing more money than we ever have before. When one asks them where this money is going to come from, they repeat, “The bankers’ bonus tax”, as though that would pay for absolutely everything they wish for, although it has already been spent about 100 times. It is depressing to see Labour Members, who fancy themselves as the next Government—they are very confident, I notice—offering such poor, ill-thought-through and pathetic solutions to a grave national crisis. People watching this debate at home will be appalled, frankly, by the level of argument, contribution and solutions that Labour Members have contributed.
	I welcome this Budget. In very difficult times, the Chancellor has identified weaknesses and has managed to alleviate some of the distress that we suffer.

Fiona O'Donnell: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), who is now, we hear, a self-declared fan of a balanced Budget. No doubt his disappointment in his own Government has kept him out of the Chamber for the vast majority of today’s debate.
	I do not know if you noticed, Mr Deputy Speaker, but on the day of the Budget this Chamber was colder than I have ever felt it before. It was as though a cold, chilly winter breeze was rolling through the Chamber as an ailing, failing, flailing Chancellor came to the Dispatch Box—but it was all too little, too late. I am so pleased to see the Business Secretary in his seat, because he will agree with me—or I will agree with him, most humbly—that the mistake that this Government made was to choke off the recovery. Just as the snow across this country is choking off the green shoots of spring, so this Government, by cutting too quickly and too deeply, have choked off the recovery.
	What really chilled me to the bone was when the Chancellor spoke about an aspirational Britain, because I am old enough to remember aspirational Britain the first time around. It was aspiration for some, but not for others.
	This Government are out of touch. I apologise for being late for today’s opening speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, but as a trustee of my local food bank my time was being taken up by people who are aspiring to put food on their table, aspiring to heat their homes and aspiring to stay in their homes.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Fiona O'Donnell: No, thank you.
	When people look back on this Government, they will see five wasted years. The two greatest evils that they have committed are the bedroom tax and the cut for millionaires. They still have time to make more mistakes, but this country will never forgive them for those measures because they go to the heart of this Government.
	I want to make some pleas on behalf of my constituency.

Martin Horwood: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Fiona O'Donnell: No, thank you.
	I want a more joined-up approach to government. Iberdrola is currently investing £10 billion in this country, but it is sitting on £3 billion because of the mess that is this Government’s energy policy. The coal-powered power station at Cockenzie in my constituency has closed and Iberdrola is not willing to invest until it gets some clarity from the Government. Some 1,000 construction jobs are on hold in my constituency, as are apprenticeships in a year when youth unemployment has risen by more than 7%. Will the Treasury team get together with the Department of Energy and Climate Change and get this in order, so that Iberdrola can invest in my constituency and the UK?
	I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) for the work that her Public Accounts Committee has done to let some sunshine on the disgraceful practice of tax avoidance in this country. I also praise the Government for meeting their commitment to spend 0.7% of our gross national income on development aid. I welcome that, but I want them to go further in the Finance Bill. There was outrage in this House and across the country at the practices of some companies headquartered overseas, and people in developing countries have the same right to be outraged if British companies do not pay their fair share of tax there. Will the Government
	take the opportunity provided by the Finance Bill to ensure clarity and transparency and that developing countries have the right to money that has been earned at the expense of their natural resources—the labour of their people—to be invested in their countries so that they can make their own choices? I hope that such a commitment will eventually be made.
	The judgment on this Government has been set not by hon. Members, but by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the 200,000 children who will be in poverty at the end of this Government’s time in office who were not in poverty before, and the people who will be worse off in 2015 than they were in 2010. I urge the Government’s Front-Bench team to listen to the Opposition and to the people of this country, and to get their act together.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. I hope to be able to call Members who wish to speak, but to assist the House I should state that the winding up speeches will start no later than 9.36 pm.

Debbie Abrahams: Last Wednesday’s Budget was more of the same. In spite of failing every economic test they have set themselves, the Government have just carried on regardless. I want to recap their economic journey and absolute failure over the past three years.
	After signs of a recovery at the end of 2010, the economy has been flatlining and we will be lucky if we escape a triple-dip recession. Growth has been downgraded at every turn. Amazingly, just over three months since the autumn statement, the Government have had to halve their growth forecast for this year to 0.6%. Borrowing is up £250 billion since 2010 and the deficit will not be eradicated by 2015 as promised. In spite of the Government telling us how important austerity was to economic confidence and low interest rates, they have lost the confidence of Moody’s credit rating agency, which downgraded our triple A status, and we have been put on notice by two other agencies.
	The Government have tried, as has happened again this afternoon, to blame everybody except themselves. They told us that austerity was the only way, only to receive a very embarrassing rebuke from the chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, who said that public spending cuts wiped 1.4% from growth last year. We only have to look at how we are doing on growth compared with the other G20 nations. We are 18th out of 20. What the Government have been saying is absolute rubbish.
	I could go on. Inflation, whether using the consumer prices index or the retail prices index, is well above the Bank of England’s 2% target. The Government have tried to say that we have more employment than ever before, but the rate of employment is lower than in 2008. One in 10 people is underemployed. Whatever indicator we go by, the Chancellor and the coalition Government are clearly failing. The public are starting to see that as well, with earnings falling by 2% a year in real terms. A recent poll showed that four out of five people feel that austerity is not working.
	The Government are carrying on regardless. Is that really just down to economic incompetence? In the words of the Cambridge economist, Ha-Joon Chang,
	“the coalition government isn’t as stupid or stubborn as it appears. It is sticking to its plan A because spending cuts are not about deficits but about rolling back the welfare state.”
	If we look at this Budget, as with the other Budgets and autumn statements, we can see exactly what is happening.
	The IFS analysis of the Budget shows that the Chancellor is funding some of his give-aways with underspends from across Whitehall Departments, including £2.2 billion of NHS savings. However, the IFS and others have shown that even with an increase in revenue from national insurance contributions, from 2015 we will need to make further public spending cuts or increase taxes to meet a £9 billion shortfall.
	The housing measures are too little, too late. They reflect the Chancellor’s inability to sort out lending for mortgages, as well as for small businesses. Many people, including property developers, will welcome the measures, but I wonder what the impact will be on demand and on house prices at a time when earnings are still constrained. They have the potential to take us back to the financial conditions of 2008.
	Most alarmingly, the Budget completely fails the anti-poverty test. The IFS, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Resolution Foundation, the New Economics Foundation and others have concluded that the poorer people are, the worse off they will be following the Budget. Raising the personal allowance does little for the million lowest-paid workers, many of whom do not pay tax in any case. Some 682,000 working families who receive child tax credit earn less than £6,420. If next week’s welfare cuts are also taken into account, the lowest-earning taxpayers will receive an income boost of just 32p a week. Of course, that does not take into account the impact of the 20% VAT hike, the 26% rise in food prices or the 20% rise in energy prices.
	The Chancellor’s distributional analysis shows that the cumulative impact of the tax, tax credit and benefit measures means a net reduction in income for the poorest 40% of households in the country. Although there is strong evidence that increasing the spending power of the poorest families is a way to boost the economy, the Government have failed to do that. This is about the Government’s choices and they have clearly failed.

Virendra Sharma: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this crucial debate.
	While this country faces the biggest housing crisis in a generation, the Government are using the Budget to help their millionaire friends buy second homes. Once again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has left hard-working people who are on lower wages struggling and hurting. Building new homes is central to this country’s economic recovery and to getting hard-working families on the housing ladder, yet in Budget after Budget the Government have come up far short of the mark. In this Budget, the Chancellor introduced “help to buy”. Last year, he introduced NewBuy. It is clear that the policies that have been introduced to help people get on the property ladder have failed and that they are not the solutions that the country urgently needs to end the housing crisis.
	In my constituency of Ealing, Southall, families are desperately struggling to find suitable and affordable homes. Just last week I heard from a family who have been waiting more than a year to find a bigger and more suitable home for them and their three children. Sarah has been sharing a two-bedroom flat with her husband, her two sons—one of whom suffers from a severe form of Asperger’s—and her two-year-old daughter. They have been told that they will have to make do with their two-bedroom flat for the foreseeable future because no new housing is coming up.
	More needs to be invested into building affordable homes to meet demand; that is a sound, logical and reasonable investment for the future of our housing market and economy. Building more housing is not only a solution to end this housing crisis, but an effective way of boosting growth. For every £1 invested by the public sector, 56p returns to the Treasury. Removing the cap on housing revenue account borrowing in London could add 0.5% to GDP—growth that is much needed. By investing in the capital’s housing infrastructure, more than 19,000 jobs would be created. Why will the Chancellor not invest in housing and growth?
	Throughout the Budget the Government have repeated that they are committed to helping those who aspire to work hard and get on, to caring for families and helping them with the cost of living, and to creating more growth. Why, therefore, do they not commit to build more affordable homes, thereby creating more jobs and growth and allowing hard-working families to live in better conditions, rather than helping millionaires buy second homes through their slapdash flagship policy?
	The Government had the opportunity to invest in housing, create more jobs and provide a decent living to all those working hard to achieve, and to allow children living in overcrowded accommodation to have a better education. If children have extra space in their house, they will get more education and an improved place in which to live; their health will be improved and they will be able to contribute more to society.

Paul Blomfield: It was good to see the Chancellor pop into the Chamber a few moments ago, although I wish he had been here a few moments before that to hear the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) accuse him of “absolute madness” for saying in opposition that he would back Labour’s spending plans, right up to the world financial crisis in 2008. That was the case, however, and the truth is that it was not Labour’s spending, which repaired the damage of the Thatcher years, that caused sub-prime lending, the collapse of Lehman brothers or the world financial crisis.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Blomfield: No, I will not, simply because of time; I would love to otherwise.
	That crisis created choices, and the Conservative-led Government have consistently made the wrong choices. The Liberal Democrats also have something to answer for because during the election they argued—rightly, and alongside Labour—that the post-2008 Tory austerity plans were wrong: wrong because they caused pain and wrong because they would damage the economy. They
	were elected on that basis; they have no mandate for this ideological assault on public spending and the welfare state.
	The Secretary of State opened the debate by talking about housing. That is a good topic because it says a lot about this Government’s wider economic policy: wrong choices and missed opportunities, epitomised by the lack of investment in housing. The Government have cut direct support for affordable housing by 60%. The stagnating economy has limited private sector investment, and as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) said, there was an 11% fall in housing starts last year.
	The Secretary of State, who is currently checking his BlackBerry, attacked Labour’s record on housing. The Labour Government did not do enough, but let us set the record straight—[Interruption.] He should keep checking his BlackBerry. It is worth remembering that housing starts have been lower in every quarter since April to June 2010, the last quarter that Labour was in power.
	The Chancellor claims he will solve the housing crisis with his latest right to buy scheme, but we have heard that before. Back in November 2011, we heard that the NewBuy scheme would help 100,000 people to buy their own homes. How many did it help? Only 1,500 people, just 1.5% of the target.
	For many young families, the alternative would be social housing, but it is not. With nearly 5 million people on local authority waiting lists, the Homes and Communities Agency has reported that affordable housing starts collapsed in the last financial year by 68%. It has been estimated that as many as 60,000 extra homes would have been built had the Chancellor used the Budget to lift borrowing restrictions on councils and arm’s length management organisations. He could have done that, but he failed to do so.
	Ideology and not practical policies drive the Government, so instead of helping with social housing, the Chancellor extended the right to buy, which is at the root of much of the problem of social housing supply. As private landlords win out, we lose vital social assets. When the Government extended the right-to-buy scheme in April 2012, the Secretary of State—he does well to smile—promised one-for-one replacement. How many have we seen? Three hundred and eighty-four new homes have been built to replace 3,495 sold, which is a 90% loss of socially rented stock.
	Finally, the new homes bonus has an unfair impact. It is designed to incentivise local authorities to approve new housing development but is calculated on the value of property, which means that areas with low property values lose out. In my case, resources moved away from Yorkshire to wealthier areas, and from Labour councils to Conservative and Liberal Democrat councils. For example, it is estimated that Sheffield council lost more than £3.5 million as a consequence of the scheme. The Secretary of State might well smile, but people in Sheffield are not smiling.
	As with the economy overall, so with housing: we need a plan B, and we need it now.

Iain McKenzie: The coalition Government have spent their time in office since 2010 telling us over and over again that they are trying to get
	the country’s finances in order. We have had their austerity, their new taxes and their extreme cuts, and yet two years later, our borrowing is still growing at an alarming rate. Despite the Government’s austerity, the Chancellor is expected to add billions to the national debt over his five years in office. Since his spending review in 2010, the UK economy has grown by just 0.7%, compared with the 5.3% forecast at the time.
	Last year, the UK economy went through a double-dip recession. The Government’s failure on deficit and debt reduction is colossal. Lack of growth has meant huge Government borrowing to pay for the cost of their economic failure. The Chancellor has failed the test he set for himself. The economy is flatlining, prices are rising a lot faster than wages, the deficit is going up, and the UK has lost its triple A credit rating. Instead of delivering a credible Budget that demands confidence in our economy, the Chancellor delivered a downgraded Budget with no plan for jobs and growth, and a Budget that hits hard-working households further.
	A wiser Chancellor would have been less dogmatic about the rightness of his policies and so left room to manoeuvre when he saw them failing. However, last Wednesday’s Budget was the work of a Chancellor who is in a hole but continues to pretend that the only way forward is to keep digging. We needed bold and decisive action last week, and a Budget that would kick-start the economy and help millions of people up and down the country who have been struggling to cope financially. I wonder whether Government Members know what that means: it means broken Britain, it means businesses closing their doors, it means small communities struggling to create local growth, it means a choice between paying the bedroom tax and eating, and it means national failure at the hands of this Government.
	In my constituency, more than 1,000 people are being referred to local food banks. Food banks in 21st-century Britain is the reality of this coalition. Instead of borrowing to help millionaires, the Government should be borrowing to help jobs and opportunities, and to stimulate economic growth across the country. The Chancellor could have brought forward infrastructure investment in schools, roads and transport to get construction workers back to work and to strengthen our economy for the future. Those measures would boost growth, get builders back to work, build the homes we desperately need and create apprenticeships for our young people.
	Britain needs a radical Budget for homes, jobs and growth, not another false dawn. We face the biggest housing crisis in a generation and the Government’s housing and economic policies are just making it worse. House building is crucial to economic recovery. Helping families to get on to the housing ladder should be a priority for the Government, and that is why we have been calling for this action for more than two years. The Government’s record on housing offers little hope to hard-working families who are struggling to get on to the housing ladder. Under this Government, house building has fallen, rents have risen, home ownership is becoming a harder goal for young people to achieve and, most worrying of all, homelessness has risen. The Government failed to back Labour’s call to use the money raised from the 4G mobile spectrum auction to build 100,000 affordable homes to stimulate the economy and help tackle the ever-growing housing crisis. The
	Chancellor could also improve existing housing stock by cutting VAT on home repairs, maintenance and improvements to 5%. I might add, however, that without a job it is impossible to buy a home or to improve it.
	Next month’s planned tax cut for millionaires should be scrapped. When the Government came to power in 2010, the message was that we are all in this together. I wonder if my constituents who have lost their jobs and the millions who rely of food banks would agree that we are all in this together. What about the millionaires looking forward to a tax cut? Well, they are definitely in it all together.
	Companies are not investing and people are not spending because they lack confidence in the UK economy. Economic confidence comes from believing that tomorrow will be better than today. The problem the Government have created is that the country no longer believes in a better tomorrow. In short, we desperately need a Labour Chancellor to deliver a Budget that supports hard-working families and struggling businesses. We need a Government who have a long-term plan for jobs and growth to build a better and fairer tomorrow.

Nigel Evans: I thank Members for their co-operation. We now will get the last two Members in.

Kate Green: Not everything in the Budget is unwelcome, but the cumulative effect of this Budget and previous Budgets and spending reviews is dire. I am fearful that in some respects we will never escape their effects—family lives have been blighted and futures lost as a result.
	I was startled at the total lack of ambition and vision for the economy expressed in the Budget. There were one or two welcome announcements—the employer national insurance break is welcome—but where is the strategy for improving the quality of jobs that is so necessary to improve our productivity and competitiveness? The rise in private sector employment that Ministers trumpet is, to a degree, illusory. It represents, in part, the fact that the working-age population has grown, so it is hardly surprising that more people are in work. It represents to a degree a re-characterisation of public sector jobs into the private sector. It is a reflection of wage cuts and freezes that mean that people are in work, but worse off, and that 80% of the increase in jobs is in involuntary part-time work.
	As the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) said, business rates remain a serious burden. They have risen by 13% in the north-west in the past three years. There was deep disappointment in my region at the decision last year to delay the revaluation, and disappointment last week that there was nothing in the Budget to help in the meantime or to take the opportunity to use the period of the freeze to review totally the purpose and structure of the business rate.
	As I said in an intervention, business will also be hit by the impact of welfare reform on household budgets. Work by the Centre for Local Economic Strategies has shown that for every £1 cut in social welfare reform, 63p is being lost to Stretford’s town centre economy, as people cut back on shopping, socialising and the use of taxis and local transport, while the loss to the local economy across the whole of Greater Manchester is
	estimated at £400 million. The business announcements in last week’s Budget will not put that money back into our local economy, and I am concerned by the warning of further restrictions on annually managed expenditure in the June spending review.
	I am glad that the Government recognise the pressures on those trying to buy their own home, and I recognise that home ownership is the aspiration of many of my constituents, but the Government refuse to recognise that renting is a valid and, indeed, necessary option for many families. The support being offered to renters is minimal and the policies divisive. If it is right to offer a public subsidy to enable a young person to get a mortgage to buy their first home, why is it wrong to give a proper subsidy, via housing benefits, to another young person aged under 35 to rent a home of their own? Let us remember that both young people could be in work.
	If it is right to provide a public subsidy to a young couple wanting to buy a new and perhaps larger home for a growing family, why is it wrong to subsidise the same family if they want to remain in social rented accommodation and also need more space as kids grow and develop? As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) said, Government support to buy a home or get a mortgage will be of no use to those of my constituents who are either not working or in short-term insecure employment, which means that they are not attractive to mortgage lenders and have no choice but to rent.
	Failure to support working families on the lowest incomes and those on out-of-work benefits feeds across to other policy areas. The child care announcements will benefit many better-off families, but as the Resolution Foundation pointed out, only 40% of those on universal credit will benefit from the maximum 85% rate, while those looking for work will not get any help at all when engaged in a job search. The same is true of the increase in the personal tax threshold, which is of no help to those on very low wages whose earnings are too low for them even to pay tax. The poor and the working poor have therefore once again totally missed out in the Budget, and as a result deprived families and communities will become more deprived.

Mr Speaker: I will call the Opposition Front-Bench speaker no later than 9.36 pm.

Jim Shannon: I welcome the many good things in the Budget, but I want to focus on one omission. The Prime Minister and the coalition have suggested that marriage should be recognised in the tax system, but yet another Budget has not recognised it. Other countries across the OECD have recognised it, but Great Britain has not. That point has to be underlined. The Prime Minister was right to commit to bringing us back into line with international best practice, and the benefits of marriage to individuals, families and society are considerable and plain to see, yet the Government have again singularly failed to deliver.
	The greater benefits of marriage reach out beyond the family structure, leading to stronger and more cohesive communities. The Relationships Foundation has shown that the cost of family failure has increased to a staggering £44 billion, which means that failed relationships across the United Kingdom cost the taxpayer £1,470 each per
	year. In that context, the Government should be doing all they can to support family stability, and that is best secured by supporting marriage. They should be encouraging and supporting marriage and the bond of commitment, not making it harder to marry in this country than across the rest of the OECD. Again, the Government have failed to address that issue.
	In recent years, the Government have said repeatedly that they back recognising marriage in the tax system, but the reality is very different. It was a headline commitment in both the Conservative manifesto and the coalition agreement. If that is not enough, public support for a transferable allowance is plain. A 2012 YouGov poll showed that 70% of people who expressed an opinion supported a tax allowance for married couples. So why the inaction?
	On 3 July 2012, I asked the Exchequer Secretary two questions on this matter. First, I asked whether the Government would honour their commitment to recognise marriage in the tax system. He did not answer. Then I asked him about implementation. Nine months later, I hope to get an answer to that question. I want to quote what I said that day:
	“Recognition of marriage in the tax system will require HMRC to make various operational changes, particularly in the IT systems. Can he reassure us that this preparatory work is already under way so that when the Government bring forward legislation to recognise marriage in the tax system there is no further delay? If he cannot do so tonight, will he make it an urgent priority to make a statement to the House setting out the time that will be required to change the IT systems and announce that he has instructed that work to begin in readiness for the introduction of the transferable allowance legislation?”—[Official Report, 3 July 2012; Vol. 547, c. 880.]
	This issue is even more pressing today because, unlike the last Budget, this Budget is quite possibly the last opportunity the Government will have to introduce the necessary Budget resolution if transferable allowances are to be up and running by the next election. If they take more than 12 months and the Government wait until the 2014 Budget, that means there will almost certainly be no transferable allowance in place at the next election. That would be tragic. I very much hope that the Minister will be good enough to answer the question today and explain either that the process will take significantly less than 12 months, so that the system can be introduced at the Budget and fully implemented within the time frame of the coalition agreement—that is, before May 2015—or that the Government will amend the Finance Bill so that the IT changes can start now.
	People feel alienated when manifestos are not delivered on and promises are not kept. It is not too late to put it right tonight.

Christopher Leslie: Before I start, hon. Members will be pleased to join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) on the arrival of her new baby daughter Anna at 6 o’clock this morning—which might explain why she is not replying to this evening’s debate.
	There can be no doubt that last week’s Budget certainly lived down to the low expectations that were billed for it. This was a Budget for lower wages and downgraded credit ratings; a Budget for lower confidence but higher debt; a Budget for poorer productivity, low growth or no growth at all in the economy. The Chancellor has
	been forced by his own failure to extinguish his deficit reduction plan, but keeps on whistling in the wind to convince his Back Benchers—perhaps even to convince himself—that he is sticking with it. This Government—or at least the largest part of this Government—were elected promising painful decisions in the short term, but said it would all be worth it in the end. As my right hon. Friends the Members for Neath (Mr Hain) and for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) said, although there has been pain for some—especially the most vulnerable in society—three years on, Britain has not advanced one jot.
	The economy has flatlined, the country’s debts are mounting and now even the Office for Budget Responsibility says that deficit reduction has “stalled”. So much for the Chancellor’s plan A. After three years of austerity, stagnation and ever higher national debt, where has it left Britain? The triple A credit rating has been humiliatingly downgraded. The OBR says that this Budget will reduce, not increase, the prospects for growth this year, and all the time the Chancellor’s borrowing plans are being revised upwards, now reaching an astronomical £245 billion higher than forecast.
	When the Chief Secretary to the Treasury replies, he will pretend that this is a Budget to build an aspiration nation, but it is just more of the same failed plan from a desperation Chancellor, presiding over a stagnation nation. As a result of his failure, the UK economy has grown by just 0.7%, compared with the 5.3% forecast at the time of the 2010 spending review. Now the failed plan of this failing Chancellor stands squarely in the path of progress, holding back the economy, making the situation far worse and digging us even deeper into the mire. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) said, Britain now faces the real prospect of a lost decade of economic decline, with confidence sapped and businesses retreating from investment in the productivity we need to keep pace with our competitors.
	Yet after four days of debate on this Budget, those on the Government Benches are still in denial, while mystery surrounds some of the details of the Treasury’s accounts and the measures announced. As my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) and for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) said, we know that the Government plan a bedroom tax on some of the least well-off in the country, starting next week, which contrasts with their plans to offer subsidised mortgages, potentially to those who want to buy a second or third property for themselves—the spare-homes subsidy, as Ministers might like to characterise it. Under this Government, it seems that there is one rule for the rich, but only one room for the poor. Despite all the other competing priorities for tax and deficit reduction, the Chancellor has failed to propose any change to the obscene timing of the millionaires’ tax cut—a cut in income tax for the richest 1%, which will we vote against this evening.
	When the Chief Secretary stands to speak, I am sure he will trumpet the changes to the personal allowance—it is what the Liberals believe they have achieved in their short period of collaboration. Before the right hon. Gentleman gets too excited with his achievement, let us take a look at it for a moment. The changes to direct
	taxes and benefits, including cuts to tax credits and child benefit, mean that the typical family will be £600 a year worse off by the next election—and that is before we include the hike in VAT to 20%, the cuts to maternity pay or the education maintenance allowance, or the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast of lower wages by the time of the next election. Those tax rises and cuts more than offset what the Government are promising in several years’ time on child care or changes to the personal allowance. Even the 1p taken off a pint of beer sinks without trace compared with the 5p the right hon. Gentleman has added through VAT.
	When the right hon. Gentleman gets to his feet, perhaps he will explain to the House what sort of an achievement he thinks it is for him and his Liberal Democrat colleagues to prop up the failed plan of this failing Chancellor, which lightens the load for the typical millionaire by £100,000 while making life tougher for ordinary families up and down the country. Perhaps he will explain why there is no return yet of the 10p starting rate of tax to help millions of low and middle-income families, as we had hoped, and no sign of a mansion tax to pay for it, as the right hon. Gentleman’s Liberal colleagues had promised. [Interruption.] Will he tell hon. Members why there is no bank bonus tax to fund a jobs guarantee for young people out of work? [Interruption.] I will happily give way to the Chancellor if he wants to intervene on this particular point. [Interruption.] I was simply asking some questions.
	As well as missing out on the chance to repeat the bank bonus tax, the Chancellor has gone soft on the bank levy. The banks paid £900 million less this year than the Chancellor said they would, on top of the £700 million less than they should have paid in the bank levy in the year before. Never mind the Chancellor; I would like to ask the Chief Secretary to explain his own support and that of his Liberal colleagues for the squalid plan to give away company shares to workers who sign away their employment rights, which even several former Tory Ministers, including Lord Lawson, could not stomach—and again, we will vote against that this evening.
	Above all else, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will set out for us just how far he is prepared to support the failing Chancellor in pretending that things are getting better on borrowing when quite plainly they are not.
	We all know that the Chancellor has crafted his reputational raison d’?tre around reducing the national debt, yet it has risen by 38% on his watch. We know that his woeful performance, placing the UK in the relegation zone of G20 nations on economic growth, has unsurprisingly torn his deficit reduction promises to shreds. We know, too, that the Office for Budget Responsibility says that borrowing this year will be the same as last year and the same next year—“stalled” is the word it uses. Frankly, there is no improvement. There is no longer a deficit reduction plan; it has failed; it is no more.
	Let us for a moment just pause and reflect on the Chancellor’s overriding political desperation to prove that the deficit is still falling. This incredibly coincidental, manufactured figure of £100 million is the sum total of deficit reduction he has sweated buckets to achieve from last year to this. This is not a deficit reduction of 1%; it is not even one tenth of 1%. At that rate, it will take more than 1,000 years to clear the deficit and balance
	the books. That is not a deficit reduction plan; it is a millennium goal. A deficit reduction from £121 billion to £120.9 billion is something that should embarrass the right hon. Gentleman, not delight him. That is not getting the deficit down; it is just rounding it down.
	The Chancellor’s embarrassment demands that the whole of the Budget should revolve around that one desperate political fig leaf. Everything has been sacrificed in the failing Chancellor’s drive to spare his blushes. There has been the last-minute dash for £11 billion of in-year cuts in health, education, transport and local services in recent weeks—all in time for midnight next Sunday—including the axing of at least 800 nursing posts from the NHS so far this month. There has been the invention of what the Chancellor called “exceptional inter-period flexibility” to push at least £1.6 billion of this year’s spending into next year’s accounts. There has been the reclassification of the UK’s contribution to the European Investment Bank in the accounts, which helpfully takes £1.3 billion out of the spending totals for this year. The whole House knows that if the normal accounting conventions had remained unchanged, Government borrowing would be up, not down, as sure as night follows day.
	Tonight, the only deficit deniers sit on the Government Benches. I believe that these distortions and manipulations are so serious that they merit not just the usual Treasury Committee inquiry into the Budget, but a review of it by the National Audit Office, and a Public Accounts Committee inquiry into the extraordinary so-called “Budget exchange” practices.
	This is a Budget that can only serve to hold Britain back. The few positive measures that it includes will not come into force for a year or more. Its many negative consequences—lower growth, lower investment, lower productivity and lower pay—will delay, or will deny Britain, the recovery that we need. The accounting devices that it deploys simply serve to shift today’s spending into tomorrow’s deficit, while the deficit reduction plan itself has now stalled.
	This is a Budget which delays the growth and recovery that our economy requires, and which puts off the stimulus that our economy demands. It is a Budget not for aspiration, but of procrastination. Far from building the goal of one nation that we all share, it will result only in the stagnation that we all fear.

Danny Alexander: Let me begin by joining the shadow Financial Secretary in his congratulations to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) on the birth of her child, as I think will Members in all parts of the House.
	The debate has been very well attended. I think that there were 46 Back-Bench speeches. It has also been very well considered and, at times, passionate. I thank Members on both sides of the House for their contributions.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government opened the debate in his usual pugnacious style. He talked about planning, housing, mortgages and the help to buy scheme, which he described in some detail. He did not mention the announcement on zero-carbon homes, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) referred to it in detail.
	There were contributions from Members representing all parts of the United Kingdom, and, I think, from all parties in the House except the Scottish National party. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards)—

Jonathan Edwards: rose—

Danny Alexander: Will the hon. Gentleman give me a moment? I am going to say something about him. He made some serious points about borrowing powers. As he knows, they are being considered in the light of the Silk commission recommendations.
	Many Government Members celebrated both the reaching of the £10,000 income tax personal allowance and the reductions in fuel duty, which one or two Opposition Members also welcomed. I will not single out every contribution, but my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) spoke passionately about those subjects. They also mentioned housing, including the important role played by affordable housing in the Budget.

Christopher Leslie: rose—

Danny Alexander: I am going to press on.

Christopher Leslie: rose—

Danny Alexander: Will the hon. Gentleman just let me finish the point?
	The hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) made passionate speeches about manufacturing. The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) celebrated the presidency of George Bush, which was somewhat surprising. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) called for a tax on television rights relating to football matches, which is not a suggestion that I shall be following up immediately.
	Now I will give way to the shadow Financial Secretary.

Christopher Leslie: The Chief Secretary mentioned housing. May I ask him about the new homes subsidy? In yesterday’s Daily Telegraph, he was quoted as saying:
	“I do not want to get into all the details.”
	Has he decided tonight to rule out making that scheme available for second or third homes?

Danny Alexander: We have made it clear throughout that there is no intention that this scheme should work to the benefit of second-home owners, but as I said yesterday and as the Chancellor has said repeatedly, we will consult on the detail of the scheme to make sure it benefits those whom it needs to benefit.
	There is a very serious problem in this country: many people, especially young couples, can afford the monthly repayments on their mortgage but cannot afford the large deposits that are now required by mortgage—

Christopher Leslie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Danny Alexander: No, I am going to press on.

Christopher Leslie: rose—

Danny Alexander: Sit down; I am going to press on. The help to buy scheme, in its several manifestations, is designed to provide support.
	We heard no apology whatsoever from Opposition Front Benchers for the mess they got this country into when in government. That is what we were looking for from the shadow Secretary of State for Local Government and the shadow Financial Secretary.
	There were contributions from a number of distinguished members of the—

Sheila Gilmore: What does the Chief Secretary have to say about the Financial Times editorial which said that the Budget offered too little to boost growth now?

Danny Alexander: I disagree with it, for reasons that I will come to. I will now make some progress.
	The right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) made a characteristically thoughtful contribution to the debate. He has made it clear, not least through his leadership of the Better Together campaign but also in response to an intervention, that the Scottish National party is not being open about the scale of the problems that an independent Scotland would face.
	It was not the presence on the Opposition Front Bench of members of the former Government that was most noticed last week. Many Members will have sensed a presence in the Chamber, and looking up they would have seen Lord Mandelson, a former member of the previous Government, looking down. Afterwards, he gave his views on the Budget. He said in a speech the following night:
	“I can't quite remember which member of the government it was who claimed to have abolished boom and bust. Well, we abolished boom…The whole argument about whether we’re cutting too far and too fast, it’s in the past. It is rather predictable party political stuff from over the despatch box, and it is a bit tiring to the public.”
	The shadow Chancellor would do well to take note. Lord Mandelson then said the following, which is particularly significant in the context of an earlier intervention:
	“I don’t think you can really take a chance, I think the markets, whose confidence in us to pay back what we borrow—that confidence is the determining factor. If that was seriously damaged by a lurch in policy I think that would be quite a risk which I would not blame the chancellor for refusing to take.”
	That is sage advice from a former member of the previous Government, which Opposition Front Benchers would do well to take.
	Last week’s Budget sent a message to hard-working families in each and every constituency up and down the country: if people want to get on in life, this Government will support them. If, in the short term, people want more money back in their pockets, we are taking measures to help them. They will pay less to fill up their car; they will pay less for a pint of beer; and, most importantly, if they earn less than £10,000 they will soon pay absolutely nothing in income tax.
	If, in the near future, Mr Speaker, a constituent of yours wants to own their own home, this Government are making that a very real possibility through low-deposit
	mortgages, through mortgage guarantees and through doubling the affordable homes guarantee programme. For those who, in the distant future, do not want their children or grandchildren to still be paying off this generation’s debts, we are taking the steps to ensure that they will not. We are reducing the structural deficit, creating a tax landscape for economic growth and building an infrastructure for the UK to compete in the global race.
	This evening, I want to talk about the steps this Government have taken to build a stronger economy and a fairer society. We are putting our faith in the private sector to help us build that stronger economy. We believe that the best way to do that is to create the most competitive tax regime in the G20. Further reducing the rate of corporation tax, which we announced in this Budget, will not only send a clear message that Britain is open for business, but will increase the return on those businesses’ investments and incentivise economic growth. Meanwhile, our £2,000 employment allowance, welcomed on both sides of the House, will be a real help for small and medium-sized businesses that want to expand and to employ more staff.
	The Government know that if we want to see growth we cannot, as our predecessors did so catastrophically, look to one industry or one city. Several Opposition Members mentioned the importance of manufacturing industry, but when in government Labour became over-dependent on one square mile, thanks to the shadow Chancellor’s prawn cocktail offensive. We know that for a stronger, more balanced economy, we need growth across different sectors, and we need growth up and down the country. That is why we are taking forward the measures from the Heseltine review; it is why my right hon. Friends the Business Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister unveiled our aerospace investment in Bristol before the Budget; it is why we are supporting the asset management sector, which is so important, particularly to the Scottish economy and to Edinburgh; and it is why, as well as supporting renewables, we are developing proposals so that communities can benefit from any shale gas discovered in their area. It is right that local communities see the benefits of natural resources in their locality.
	We also need to make sure that our industrial base is broad, as we have seen only too clearly the dangers of over-reliance on one specific sector. That is why my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is overseeing £1.8 billion of funding to support strategies in 11 key sectors, working to ensure that our economy makes the most of its potential in life sciences, construction and many other areas. While we build this stronger economy, we are also making sure that we build a fairer society. The Labour party likes to portray itself as the party of taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but everyone who was paying income tax at the l0p rate and was then paying income tax at double that rate will soon, thanks to this Government, be paying no income tax at all. That policy comes straight from the Liberal Democrat manifesto to the pockets of millions of hard-working families up and down the country, thanks to this coalition Government.
	Of course we recognise that, despite these actions, times are still difficult for many families up and down the country. For that reason, we have taken the decision to cancel this September’s fuel duty increase, which was
	baked into the public finances by the Labour party. That cancellation has been welcomed across the House, but especially by Members with more rural constituencies such as mine.
	I must also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) on his tireless and passionate campaigning on beer duty. I know that he has some wonderful pubs and a very good beer shop in his constituency, I know how many excellent breweries we have up and down the country, and I know that our scrapping of the beer duty escalator will be a real boon both for the pub trade and for the brewing industry.

Jim Sheridan: The Chief Secretary has mentioned the beer tax, but does he have anything to say to the Scotch whisky industry, which is suffering as a consequence of the Budget?

Danny Alexander: I say, as I said directly to the Scotch whisky industry, that this Government are giving considerable support to it as it seeks to broaden its reach into export markets across the world. The work of UKTI, in particular, is of great assistance to that industry.
	We are building a stronger economy and a fairer society, and we are also helping people that want to get on in life. If you want to get on in life, last week’s was a Budget that will support you. It was a Budget that will give thousands of people the opportunity to step on to the housing ladder or step up the housing ladder. Our £5.4 billion housing package will boost home ownership and kick-start the building of new homes. The intention of the help to buy scheme is to provide help to people who want to get their first home or move home but cannot afford the deposit that today’s mortgages now require. This is a complex policy area, and we are working with the industry to find a practical and sensible way of taking the scheme forward without blunting its radicalism or its reach. I am sure we will achieve that.

Christopher Leslie: rose—

Danny Alexander: I am going to press on, as there is no time left.
	There are many other ways the Government are helping people to get on in life. Our tax-free child care measures, for example, will ensure that from autumn 2015 vouchers supporting 20% of child care costs will be available to families when both parents or a single parent is working, neither parent is earning more than £150,000 a year and the parents are not already receiving a more generous level of support through the tax credit system.
	The Government are helping people to get on in life and plan for their financial futures. Thanks to the excellent work of my the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), we have already brought in auto-enrolment, which will help bring 9 million people into a workplace pension scheme, and we are also radically simplifying the state pension system and bringing that simplification forward through the single tier.
	Of course, there is a lot of work to do in the longer term to strengthen our economy, but we must start by cleaning up the mess made by the Labour party. We believe that we are putting the right measures in place to
	bring the deficit down and to speed up growth. The Budget is another step towards building a stronger economy and a fairer society to help those people who want to get on, and I commend it to the House.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 299, Noes 243.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	(1) That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance.
	(2) This Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—
	(a) for zero-rating or exempting a supply, acquisition or importation;
	(b) for refunding an amount of tax;
	(c) for any relief, other than a relief that—
	(i) so far as it is applicable to goods, applies to goods of every description, and
	(ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.
	The Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the motions made in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Standing Order No. 51 (3)).

2. INCOME TAX (CHARGE)

Question put,
	That income tax is charged for the tax year 2013-14.
	And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 299, Noes 243.

Question accordingly agreed to.

3. INCOME TAX (PERSONAL ALLOWANCE FOR THOSE BORN AFTER 5 APRIL 1948)

Resolved,
	That—
	(1) For the tax year 2013-14 the amount specified in section 35(1) of the Income Tax Act 2007 (personal allowance for those born after 5 April 1948) is replaced with “£9,440”.
	(2) Accordingly section 57 of that Act (indexation of allowances), so far as relating to the amount specified in section 35(1) of that Act, does not apply for that tax year.
	And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

4. INCOME TAX (BASIC RATE LIMIT)

Resolved,
	That—
	(1) For the tax year 2013-14 the amount specified in section 10(5) of the Income Tax Act 2007 (basic rate limit) is replaced with “£32,010”.
	(2) Accordingly section 21 of that Act (indexation of limits), so far as relating to the basic rate limit, does not apply for that tax year.
	And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

5. CORPORATION TAX (CHARGE AND MAIN RATE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2014)

Resolved,
	That—
	(1) Corporation tax is charged for the financial year 2014.
	(2) For that year the rate of corporation tax is—
	(a) 21% on profits of companies other than ring fence profits, and
	(b) 30% on ring fence profits of companies.
	(3) In paragraph (2) “ring fence profits” has the same meaning as in Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (see section 276 of that Act).

6. CORPORATION TAX (SMALL PROFITS RATE AND FRACTIONS FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2013)

Resolved,
	That—
	(1) For the financial year 2013 the small profits rate is—
	(a) 20% on profits of companies other than ring fence profits, and
	(b) 19% on ring fence profits of companies.
	(2) For the purposes of Part 3 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010, for that year—
	(a) the standard fraction is 3/400ths, and
	(b) the ring fence fraction is 11/400ths.
	(3) In paragraph (1) “ring fence profits” has the same meaning as in Part 8 of that Act (see section 276 of that Act).

7. CONTRIBUTIONS TO REGISTERED PENSION SCHEMES

Resolved,
	That provision may be made amending section 308 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003.

8. TAX ADVANTAGED EMPLOYEE SHARE SCHEMES

Resolved,
	That provision may be made amending the SIP code, the SAYE code, the CSOP code or the EMI code.

9. PATENT ROYALTIES

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about income tax relief in respect of payments of patent royalties.

10. LIMIT ON INCOME TAX RELIEFS

Resolved,
	That—
	(1) In Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (calculation of income tax liability) after section 24 insert—
	“24A Limit on Step 2 deductions
	(1) If the taxpayer is an individual, there is a limit on certain deductions which may be made for the tax year at Step 2.
	(2) The limit is determined as follows.
	(3) Amount A must not exceed amount B.
	(4) Amount A is—
	(a) the deductions for the tax year at Step 2 for the reliefs listed in subsection (6) taken together, less
	(b) so much of those deductions as fall within subsection (7).
	(5) Amount B is—
	(a) £50,000, or
	(b) if more, 25% of the taxpayer’s adjusted total income for the tax year (see subsection (8)).
	(6) The reliefs are—
	(a) relief under section 64 (trade loss relief against general income);
	(b) relief under section 72 (early trade losses relief);
	(c) relief under section 96 (post-cessation trade relief);
	(d) relief under section 120 (property loss relief against general income);
	(e) relief under section 125 (post-cessation property relief);
	(f) relief under section 128 (employment loss relief against general income);
	(g) relief under Chapter 6 of Part 4 (share loss relief);
	(h) relief under Chapter 1 of Part 8 (interest payments);
	(i) relief under section 555 of ITEPA 2003 (deduction for liabilities relating to former employment);
	(j) relief under section 446 of ITTOIA 2005 (strips of government securities: relief for losses);
	(k) relief under section 454(4) of ITTOIA 2005 (listed securities held since 26 March 2003: relief for losses: persons other than trustees).
	(7) The deductions falling within this subsection are—
	(a) deductions for amounts of relief so far as attributable to allowances under Part 3A of CAA 2001 (business premises renovation allowances);
	(b) deductions for amounts of relief under a provision mentioned in subsection (6)(a) to (e) so far as made from profits of the trade or business to which the relief in question relates;
	(c) deductions for amounts of relief under the provision mentioned in subsection (6)(a) or (b) so far as attributable to a deduction allowed under section 205 or 220 of ITTOIA 2005 (deduction for overlap profit in final tax year or on change of accounting date);
	(d) deductions for amounts of relief under the provision mentioned in subsection (6)(g)—
	(i) where the shares in question fall within section 131(2)(a) (qualifying shares to which EIS relief is attributable), or
	(ii) where SEIS relief is attributable to the shares in question as determined in accordance with Part 5A (seed enterprise investment scheme).
	(8) The taxpayer’s “adjusted total income” for the tax year is calculated as follows.
	Step 1
	Take the amount of the taxpayer’s total income for the tax year.
	Step 2
	Add back the amounts of any deductions allowed under Part 12 of ITEPA 2003 (payroll giving) in calculating the taxpayer’s income which is charged to tax for the tax year.
	Step 3
	If the taxpayer is given relief in accordance with section 192 of FA 2004 (pension schemes: relief at source) in respect of any contribution paid in the tax year under a pension scheme, deduct the gross amount of the contribution.
	The “gross” amount of a contribution is the amount of the contribution before deduction of tax under section 192(1) of FA 2004.
	Step 4
	If the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction for relief under section 193(4) or 194(1) of FA 2004 (pension schemes: excess relief under net payment arrangements or relief on making a claim) for the tax year, deduct the amount of the excess or contribution (as the case may be).
	The result is the taxpayer’s adjusted total income for the tax year.”
	(2) In section 23 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (calculation of income tax liability) at step 2 for “section 25” substitute “sections 24A and 25”.
	(3) In the following provisions of the Income Tax Act 2007 (which explain how certain reliefs work) for “section 25(4) and (5)” substitute “sections 24A and 25(4) and (5)”—
	(a) section 65(1),
	(b) section 73,
	(c) section 121(1),
	(d) section 129(1), and
	(e) section 133(1).
	(4) In section 148 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (share loss relief: disposal of shares forming part of mixed holding) in subsection (3)(b) before sub-paragraph (i) insert—
	“(ai) shares to which SEIS relief is attributable (as determined in accordance with Part 5A),”.
	(5) The amendments made by paragraphs (1) to (4) have effect for the tax year 2013-14 and subsequent tax years.
	(6) Paragraph (7) applies to a claim which relates to the tax year 2013-14 or a subsequent tax year by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1B to the Taxes Management Act 1970 where the earlier year is a tax year before the tax year 2013-14.
	(7) The amount of the claim is to be determined as if the amendments made by paragraphs (1) to (4) also have effect for tax years before the tax year 2013-14.
	(8) For this purpose, section 24A(6) of the Income Tax Act 2007 (as inserted by paragraph (1)) is treated as having effect for tax years before the tax year 2013-14 as if—
	(a) in paragraphs (a), (b), (f) and (g) the references to relief were limited to relief in respect of a loss made in the tax year 2013-14 or a subsequent tax year, and
	(b) all the other paragraphs were omitted.
	(9) In section 24A(6)(d) of the Income Tax Act 2007 (as inserted by paragraph (1)) the reference to relief does not include relief in respect of a loss made in the tax year 2012-13.
	And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

11. CALCULATION OF PROFITS ON CASH BASIS

Resolved,
	That provision may be made for and in connection with the calculation of the profits of a trade, profession or vocation for the purposes of income tax on the cash basis.

12. DEDUCTIONS IN CALCULATING PROFITS

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about the deductions allowed when calculating—
	(a) the profits of a trade, profession, vocation or property business for the purposes of income tax, or
	(b) the profits of a trade or property business for the purposes of corporation tax.

13. ARRANGEMENTS MADE BY INTERMEDIARIES

Resolved,
	That—
	(1) In Chapter 8 of Part 2 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (application of provisions to workers under arrangements made by intermediaries), in section 49 (engagements to which chapter applies), for subsection (1)(c) substitute—
	“(c) the circumstances are such that—
	(i) if the services were provided under a contract directly between the client and the worker, the worker would be regarded for income tax purposes as an employee of the client or the holder of an office under the client, or
	(ii) the worker is an office-holder who holds that office under the client and the services relate to the office.”
	(2) This Resolution has effect for the tax year 2013-14 and subsequent tax years.
	And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

14. INSURANCE POLICIES ETC.

Resolved,
	That the following provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made—
	(a) provision amending Schedule 15 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988,
	(b) provision amending Chapter 9 of Part 4 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, and
	(c) provision amending section 55 of the Finance Act 1995.

15. TRANSFER OF ASSETS ABROAD

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending Chapter 2 of Part 13 of the Income Tax Act 2007.

16. DEDUCTION FROM INTEREST PAYMENTS

Resolved,
	That provision may be made amending Chapter 3 of Part 15 of the Income Tax Act 2007.

17. DISGUISED INTEREST

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about returns which are economically equivalent to interest.

18. CONTROLLED FOREIGN COMPANIES

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about or in connection with CFCs (within the meaning of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010).

19. DEDUCTIONS AFTER CHANGES IN COMPANY OWNERSHIP ETC.

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about amounts that may be deducted for corporation tax purposes following changes in the ownership of, or in partnership arrangements relating to, a company.

20. EXPENDITURE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about tax relief for expenditure on research and development.

21. TELEVISION PROGRAMMES AND VIDEO GAMES

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about the taxation of activities in connection with television programmes and video games.

22. REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS

Resolved,
	That provision may be made amending Part 12 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010.

23. TAX RELIEF FOR EMPLOYEE SHARE ACQUISITIONS ETC.

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about the tax relief that is available to companies in connection with—
	(a) shares acquired by persons because of employments (directly or indirectly), or
	(b) options to acquire shares obtained by persons because of employments (directly or indirectly) or shares acquired pursuant to such options.

24. DERIVATIVE CONTRACTS

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending Chapter 7 of Part 7 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009.

25. TAX MISMATCH SCHEMES

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about tax mismatch schemes.

26. TIER TWO CAPITAL

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about tier two capital.

27. TAX TREATMENT OF FINANCING COSTS AND INCOME (GROUP TREASURY COMPANIES)

That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending section 316 of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010.

28. COMMUNITY AMATEUR SPORTS CLUBS

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about community amateur sports clubs.

29. PENSION SCHEMES

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made in relation to pension schemes.

30. DRAWDOWN PENSIONS AND DEPENDANTS’ DRAWDOWN PENSIONS

Resolved,
	That—
	(1) In section 165 of the Finance Act 2004 (pension rules), in subsection (1), in pension rule 5, for “100%” substitute “120%”.
	(2) In section 167 of that Act (pension death benefit rules), in subsection (1), in pension death benefit rule 4, for “100%” substitute “120%”.
	(3) In Schedule 16 to the Finance Act 2011 (benefits under pension schemes)—
	(a) in paragraph 90(2)(a), after “year” insert “beginning before 26 March 2013 and”,
	(b) in paragraph 90(3), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” before it,
	(c) in paragraph 98(2)(a), after “year” insert “beginning before 26 March 2013 and”, and
	(d) in paragraph 98(3), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” before it.
	(4) The amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (2) have effect in relation to drawdown pension years beginning on or after 26 March 2013.
	(5) The amendments made by paragraph (3)(a) and (c) come into force on 26 March 2013.
	(6) The amendments made by paragraph (3)(b) and (d) have effect in relation to transfers within paragraph 90(5) or 98(5) of Schedule 16 to the Finance Act 2011 occurring during a drawdown pension year ending on or after 25 March 2013.
	And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

31. EMPLOYEE SHAREHOLDER SHARES

Question put,
	That provision may be made in connection with the acquisition and disposal of employee shareholder shares.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 299, Noes 240.

Question accordingly agreed to.

32. SEED ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT SCHEME

Resolved,
	That provision may be made restricting the relief given under the seed enterprise investment scheme.

33. DISINCORPORATION RELIEF

Resolved,
	That provision may be made in connection with the transfer of a business from a company to its shareholders.

34. ATTRIBUTION OF GAINS TO MEMBERS OF NON-RESIDENT COMPANIES

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made for and in connection with the amendment of section 13 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.

35. TREATMENT FOR CAPITAL GAINS TAX PURPOSES OF SHARES ACQUIRED UNDER THE EMI CODE

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made for capital gains tax purposes in connection with shares acquired under options which are qualifying options under the EMI code.

36. CAPITAL GAINS TAX ON DISPOSALS OF HIGH VALUE PROPERTIES

Resolved,
	That provision may be made for and in connection with a charge to capital gains tax on disposals of interests in high value properties.

37. CALCULATION OF CHARGEABLE GAINS OF COMPANIES

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about the calculation of chargeable gains of companies on disposals of assets.

38. CAPITAL ALLOWANCES

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about capital allowances.

39. COMMUNITY INVESTMENT TAX RELIEF

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about community investment tax relief.

40. LEASE PREMIUM RELIEF

Resolved,
	That provision may be made in relation to the deductions that are allowed to tenants under taxed leases (as defined in section 287 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 and section 227 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009).

41. MANUFACTURED PAYMENTS

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about manufactured payments (including deemed manufactured payments).

42. CLOSE COMPANIES

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about close companies.

43. OIL TAXATION (PETROLEUM REVENUE TAX)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made in relation to petroleum revenue tax.

44. OIL TAXATION (LOAN RELATIONSHIPS)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about loan relationships in respect of property that is comprised in a settlement the sole or main purpose of which is to provide security for the performance of obligations under an abandonment programme approved under Part 4 of the Petroleum Act 1998.

45. OIL TAXATION (RING FENCE TRADES)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about the taxation of ring fence trades.

46. ANNUAL TAX ON ENVELOPED DWELLINGS

Resolved,
	That provision may be made for and in connection with the imposition of a new tax on the holding of interests in high value properties.

47. INHERITANCE TAX (TREATMENT OF LIABILITIES)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about the treatment of liabilities for the purposes of inheritance tax.

48. INHERITANCE TAX (NON-DOMICILED SPOUSES AND CIVIL PARTNERS)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made for and in connection with persons who are not domiciled in the United Kingdom, but are or were the spouse or civil partner of a person so domiciled, to elect to be treated as so domiciled for the purposes of inheritance tax.

49. FUEL DUTIES (RATES AND REBATES)

Resolved,
	That—
	(1) The Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 6(1A) (main rates)—
	(a) in paragraph (a) (unleaded petrol), for “£0.6097” substitute “£0.5795”,
	(b) in paragraph (aa) (aviation gasoline), for “£0.3966” substitute “£0.3770”,
	(c) in paragraph (b) (light oil other than unleaded petrol or aviation gasoline), for “£0.7069” substitute “£0.6767”, and
	(d) in paragraph (c) (heavy oil), for “£0.6097” substitute “£0.5795”.
	(3) In section 8(3) (road fuel gas)—
	(a) in paragraph (a) (natural road fuel gas), for “£0.2907” substitute “£0.2470”, and
	(b) in paragraph (b) (other road fuel gas), for “£0.3734” substitute “£0.3161”.
	(4) In section 11(1) (rebate on heavy oil)—
	(a) in paragraph (a) (fuel oil), for “£0.1126” substitute “£0.1070”, and
	(b) in paragraph (b) (gas oil), for “£0.1172” substitute “£0.1114”.
	(5) In section 14(1) (rebate on light oil for use as furnace fuel), for “£0.1126” substitute “£0.1070”.
	(6) In section 14A(2) (rebate on certain biodiesel), for “£0.1172” substitute “£0.1114”.
	(7) The following instruments are revoked—
	(a) Excise Duties (Surcharges or Rebates) (Hydrocarbon Oils etc) Order 2012 (S.I. 2012/3055), and
	(b) Excise Duties (Road Fuel Gas) (Reliefs) Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/3056).
	(8) The amendments and revocations made by this Resolution come into force on 1 April 2013.
	And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

50. ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR DUTIES (RATES)

Resolved,
	That—
	(1) The Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 5 (rate of duty on spirits), for “£26.81” substitute “£28.22”.
	(3) In section 36(1AA) (rates of general beer duty)—
	(a) in paragraph (za) (rate of duty on lower strength beer), for “£9.76” substitute “£9.17”, and
	(b) in paragraph (a) (standard rate of duty on beer), for “£19.51” substitute “£19.12”.
	(4) In section 37(4) (rate of high strength beer duty), for “£4.88” substitute “£5.09”.
	(5) In section 62(1A) (rates of duty on cider)—
	(a) in paragraph (a) (rate of duty per hectolitre on sparkling cider of a strength exceeding 5.5 per cent), for “£245.32” substitute “£258.23”,
	(b) in paragraph (b) (rate of duty per hectolitre on cider of a strength exceeding 7.5 per cent which is not sparkling cider), for “£56.55” substitute “£59.52”, and
	(c) in paragraph (c) (rate of duty per hectolitre in any other case), for “£37.68” substitute “£39.66”.
	(6) For the table in Schedule 1 substitute—
	
		
			 “Table of Rates of Duty on Wine and Made-WinePart 1Wine or Made-Wine of a Strength not Exceeding 22 per cent 
			 Description of wine or made-wine Rates of duty per hectolitre£ 
			 Wine or made-wine of a strength not exceeding 4 per cent. 82.18 
			 Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 4 per cent. but not exceeding 5.5 per cent. 113.01 
			 Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 5.5 per cent. but not exceeding 15 per cent. and not being sparkling 266.72 
			 Sparkling wine or sparkling made-wine of a strength exceeding 5.5 per cent. but less than 8.5 per cent. 258.23 
			 Sparkling wine or sparkling made-wine of a strength of 8.5 per cent. or of a strength exceeding 8.5 per cent. but not exceeding 15 per cent. 341.63 
			 Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 15 per cent. but not exceeding 22 per cent. 355.59 
		
	
	
		
			 Part 2Wine or Made-Wine of a Strength Exceeding 22 per cent 
			 Description of wine or made-wine Rates of duty per litre of alcohol in wine or made-wine £ 
			 Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 22 per cent 28.22” 
		
	
	(7) The amendments made by this Resolution come into force on 25 March 2013.
	And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

51. TOBACCO PRODUCTS DUTY (RATES)

Resolved,
	That—
	(1) For the table in Schedule 1 to the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 substitute—
	
		
			 “Table 
			 1. Cigarettes An amount equal to 16.5 per cent of the retail price plus £176.22 per thousand cigarettes 
			 2. Cigars £219.82 per kilogram 
			 3. Hand-rolling tobacco £172.74 per kilogram 
			 4. Other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco £96.64 per kilogram”. 
		
	
	(2) The amendment made by this Resolution comes into force at 6 pm on 20 March 2013.
	And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

52. TOBACCO PRODUCTS DUTY (HERBAL SMOKING PRODUCTS)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made for tobacco products duty to be charged on herbal smoking products.

53. AIR PASSENGER DUTY (RATES OF DUTY FROM 1 APRIL 2013)

Question put,
	That—
	(1) Section 30 of the Finance Act 1994 (air passenger duty: rates of duty) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (3)—
	(a) in paragraph (a) for “£65” substitute “£67”, and
	(b) in paragraph (b) for “£130” substitute “£134”.
	(3) In subsection (4)—
	(a) in paragraph (a) for “£81” substitute “£83”, and
	(b) in paragraph (b) for “£162” substitute “£166”.
	(4) In subsection (4A)—
	(a) in paragraph (a) for “£92” substitute “£94”, and
	(b) in paragraph (b) for “£184” substitute “£188”.
	(5) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect in relation to the carriage of passengers beginning on or after 1 April 2013.
	And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 293, Noes 16.

Question accordingly agreed to.

54. AIR PASSENGER DUTY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISION)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made for requiring persons to make payments on account of their liabilities for air passenger duty based on estimates of what their liabilities will be.

55. VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY (RATES FOR LIGHT PASSENGER VEHICLES ETC.)

Resolved,
	That—
	(1) Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (annual rates of duty) is amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 1 (general)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (2) (vehicle not covered elsewhere in Schedule otherwise than with engine cylinder capacity not exceeding 1,549cc), for “£220” substitute “£225”, and
	(b) in sub-paragraph (2A) (vehicle not covered elsewhere in Schedule with engine cylinder capacity not exceeding 1,549cc), for “£135” substitute “£140”.
	(3) In paragraph 1B (graduated rates of duty for light passenger vehicles)—
	(a) for the tables substitute—
	
		
			 “Table 1Rates Payable on First Vehicle Licence for Vehicle 
			 CO2 emissions figure Rate 
			 (1) (2) (3) (4) 
			 Exceeding Not exceeding Reduced rate Standard rate 
			 g/km g/km £ £ 
			 130 140 115 125 
			 140 150 130 140 
			 150 165 165 175 
			 165 175 275 285 
			 175 185 325 335 
			 185 200 465 475 
			 200 225 610 620 
			 225 255 830 840 
			 255 — 1055 1065 
		
	
	
		
			 Table 2Rates Payable on any other Licence for Vehicle 
			 CO2 emissions figure Rate 
			 (1) (2) (3) (4) 
			 Exceeding Not exceeding Reduced rate Standard rate 
			 g/km g/km £ £ 
			 100 110 10 20 
			 110 120 20 30 
			 120 130 95 105 
			 130 140 115 125 
			 140 150 130 140 
			 150 165 165 175 
			 165 175 190 200 
			 175 185 210 220 
			 185 200 250 260 
			 200 225 270 280 
			 225 255 465 475 
			 255 — 480 490”; 
		
	
	(b) in the sentence immediately following the tables, for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—
	“(a) in column (3), in the last two rows, “270” were substituted for “465” and “480”, and
	(b) in column (4), in the last two rows, “280” were substituted for “475” and “490”.”
	(4) In paragraph 1J (VED rates for light goods vehicles)—
	(a) in paragraph (a), for “£215” substitute “£220”, and
	(b) in paragraph (b), for “£135” substitute “£140”.
	(5) In paragraph 2(1) (VED rates for motorcycles)—
	(a) in paragraph (a), for “£16” substitute “£17”,
	(b) in paragraph (b), for “£36” substitute “£37”,
	(c) in paragraph (c), for “£55” substitute “£57”, and
	(d) in paragraph (d), for “£76” substitute “£78”.
	(6) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect in relation to licences taken out on or after 1 April 2013.
	And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

56. VEHICLE LICENCES FOR DISABLED PEOPLE

Resolved,
	That—
	(1) The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 is amended as follows.
	(2) Section 19 (rebates) is amended as follows.
	(3) In subsection (3), after paragraph (c) insert—
	“(ca) a qualifying application for a vehicle licence for the vehicle is made,”.
	(4) After that subsection insert—
	“(3ZA) An application for a vehicle licence is a qualifying application for the purposes of subsection (3)(ca) if—
	(a) paragraph 1ZA of Schedule 1 applies to the vehicle when the application is made, but
	(b) that paragraph did not apply to the vehicle when the licence which is unexpired when the application is made was taken out.”
	(5) Section 22ZA (nil licences for vehicles for disabled persons: information) is amended as follows.
	(6) In subsection (1)(b), at the beginning insert “falls within subsection (1A) or”.
	(7) After subsection (1) insert—
	“(1A) Information falls within this subsection if it is—
	(a) the name, date of birth or national insurance number of a person who is in receipt of a relevant payment, or would be in receipt of such a payment but for—
	(i) regulations under section 86(1) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (treatment as in-patient in hospital or similar institution), or
	(ii) corresponding provision having effect in relation to personal independence payment in Northern Ireland;
	(b) in the case of a person who is or would be in receipt of personal independence payment attributable to entitlement to the mobility component, the rate of the payment to which the person is or would be entitled;
	(c) in the case of a person who has ceased or will cease to receive a relevant payment, the date on which the person ceased or will cease to receive it and the reason for the person ceasing to receive it.
	(1B) In subsection (1A) “relevant payment” means—
	(a) personal independence payment attributable to entitlement to the mobility component, and
	(b) armed forces independence payment.”
	(8) In subsections (2) and (4), and in the heading, omit “nil”.
	(9) For subsection (5) substitute—
	“(5) In this section “relevant licence functions” means functions relating to applications for, and the issue of—
	(a) vehicle licences in respect of vehicles to which paragraph 1ZA of Schedule 1 applies, and
	(b) nil licences in respect of vehicles that are exempt vehicles under paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 or paragraph 7 of Schedule 4.”
	(10) In section 62(1) (definitions), at the appropriate places insert—
	““armed forces independence payment” means armed forces independence payment under a scheme established under section 1 of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004,”, and
	““personal independence payment” means personal independence payment under—
	(a) the Welfare Reform Act 2012, or
	(b) the corresponding provision having effect in Northern Ireland,”.
	(11) In Schedule 1 (annual rates of duty), in Part 1 after paragraph 1 insert—
	“1ZA(1) The annual rate of vehicle excise duty applicable to a vehicle to which this paragraph applies is 50 per cent of the rate which (but for this paragraph) would be applicable.
	(2) This paragraph applies to a vehicle when it is being used, or kept for use, by or for the purposes of a disabled person who is in receipt of personal independence payment by virtue of entitlement to the mobility component at the standard rate if—
	(a) the vehicle is registered under this Act in the name of the disabled person, and
	(b) no other vehicle registered in his or her name under this Act is—
	(i) a vehicle for which a vehicle licence taken out at a rate of duty reduced in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) is in force, or
	(ii) an exempt vehicle under paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 or paragraph 7 of Schedule 4.
	(3) This paragraph has effect as if a person were in receipt of personal independence payment by virtue of entitlement to the mobility component at the standard rate in any case where the person would be in receipt of that payment by virtue of that entitlement but for—
	(a) regulations under section 86(1) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (treatment as in-patient in hospital or similar institution), or
	(b) corresponding provision having effect in Northern Ireland.
	(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), a vehicle is to be treated as registered under this Act in the name of a person in receipt of personal independence payment by virtue of entitlement to the mobility component at the standard rate if it is so registered in the name of—
	(a) an appointee, or
	(b) a person nominated for the purposes of this paragraph by the person or an appointee.
	(5) In sub-paragraph (4) “appointee” means a person appointed pursuant to regulations made under (or having effect as if made under) the Social Security Administration Act 1992 or the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 to exercise any of the rights and powers of a person in receipt of personal independence payment.”
	(12) In Schedule 2 (exempt vehicles), paragraph 19 is amended as follows.
	(13) In sub-paragraph (1), for paragraph (b) substitute—
	“(b) no other vehicle registered in his or her name under this Act is—
	(i) a vehicle for which a vehicle licence taken out at a rate of vehicle excise duty reduced in accordance with paragraph 1ZA(1) of Schedule 1 is in force, or
	(ii) an exempt vehicle under this paragraph or paragraph 7 of Schedule 4.”
	(14) In sub-paragraph (2), after paragraph (a) insert—
	“(aa) he or she is in receipt of personal independence payment by virtue of entitlement to the mobility component at the enhanced rate,
	(ab) he or she is in receipt of armed forces independence payment,”.
	(15) After sub-paragraph (2A) insert—
	“(2B) This paragraph has effect as if a person were in receipt of personal independence payment by virtue of entitlement to the mobility component at the enhanced rate in any case where the person would be in receipt of that payment by virtue of that entitlement but for—
	(a) regulations under section 86(1) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (treatment as in-patient in hospital or similar institution), or
	(b) corresponding provision having effect in Northern Ireland.”
	(16) In sub-paragraph (3), for “person in receipt of a disability living allowance by virtue of entitlement to the mobility component at the higher rate, or of a mobility supplement,” substitute “disabled person who satisfies sub-paragraph (2) by virtue of paragraph (a), (aa), (ab) or (b) of that sub-paragraph”.
	(17) In sub-paragraph (4)(a), after “disability living allowance,” insert “personal independence payment or armed forces independence payment,”.
	(18) The amendments made by this Resolution come into force on 8 April 2013.
	And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

57. VALUE ADDED TAX (HEALTH SERVICE BODIES)

Resolved,
	That—
	(1) In section 41 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (application to the Crown), in subsection (7), after “Board” insert “and a clinical commissioning group, the Health and Social Care Information Centre, the National Health Service Commissioning Board and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence”.
	(2) The amendment made by this Resolution comes into force on 1 April 2013.
	And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

58. VALUE ADDED TAX (SUPPLIES OF FUEL)

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about the value of certain supplies of fuel for the purposes of value added tax.

59. VALUE ADDED TAX (ENERGY-SAVING MATERIALS)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about energy-saving materials.

60. STAMP DUTY LAND TAX

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending Part 4 of the Finance Act 2003.

61. LANDFILL TAX (STANDARD RATE)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about the standard rate of landfill tax.

62. CLIMATE CHANGE LEVY (RATES)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about the rates of climate change levy.

63. CLIMATE CHANGE LEVY (SUPPLIES SUBJECT TO CARBON PRICE SUPPORT RATES ETC)

Resolved,
	That—
	(1) On and after 26 March 2013, Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 2000 (climate change levy) has effect as if neither—
	(a) Schedule 20 to the Finance Act 2011, nor
	(b) Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 32 to the Finance Act 2012, had ever been enacted.
	(2) Accordingly—
	(a) in the Finance Act 2011, section 78 and Schedule 20 are omitted, and
	(b) in the Finance Act 2012, Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 32 are omitted.
	(3) Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 2000 (climate change levy) is amended as follows.
	(4) In paragraph 4 (definition of “taxable supply”) in sub-paragraph (2)(b) after “24” insert “, 24A, 24B, 24C, 42D”.
	(5) In paragraph 5 (supplies of electricity) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
	“(2A) Levy is chargeable on a supply of electricity if—
	(a) the supply is made by an exempt unlicensed electricity supplier who is an auto-generator or who is of a description prescribed by regulations made by the Treasury,
	(b) the electricity was produced in a generating station owned by the supplier using commodities which were the subject of a deemed supply under paragraph 24A or which would have been the subject of such a supply had the reference in paragraph 24A(1)(a) to Great Britain been a reference to the United Kingdom instead,
	(c) the supply is not a deemed supply under paragraph 23(3), and
	(d) the person to whom the supply is made is not an electricity utility.”
	(6) In paragraph 6 (supplies of gas) in sub-paragraph (2A) after “24” insert “, 24A, 24B, 24C, 42D”.
	(7) Paragraph 14 (exemption for supplies to electricity producers) is amended as follows.
	(8) In sub-paragraphs (2)(b) and (3)(b) after “electricity” insert “in a small generating station”.
	(9) After sub-paragraph (3) insert—
	“(3ZA) Sub-paragraph (1) does not exempt a supply where the person to whom the supply is made—
	(a) uses the commodity supplied in producing electricity in a stand-by generator, and
	(b) uses the electricity produced otherwise than in exemption-retaining ways.”
	(10) After sub-paragraph (3A) insert—
	“(3B) Paragraph 24A makes provision under which carbon price support rate commodities intended to be used in a generating station may be the subject of a deemed taxable supply (and, accordingly, this paragraph needs to be read subject to that paragraph).”
	(11) Omit sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).
	(12) In paragraph 15 (exemption for supplies to combined heat and power stations) after sub-paragraph (4) insert—
	“(4A) Paragraph 24B makes provision under which carbon price support rate commodities intended to be used in a combined heat and power station may be the subject of a deemed taxable supply (and, accordingly, this paragraph needs to be read subject to that paragraph).”
	(13) Paragraph 17 (exemption: self-supplies by electricity producers) is amended as follows.
	(14) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—
	“(1A) The supply is exempt from levy if it is a supply of electricity produced in—
	(a) a fully exempt combined heat and power station,
	(b) a partly exempt combined heat and power station,
	(c) a stand-by generator, or
	(d) a small generating station.
	(1B) Sub-paragraph (1A)(d) applies only if the producer is—
	(a) an auto-generator, or
	(b) an exempt unlicensed electricity supplier of a description prescribed by regulations made by the Treasury.”
	(15) In sub-paragraph (2) for the words from “If” to “unless—” substitute “This paragraph does not exempt the supply if—”.
	(16) Omit sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).
	(17) In paragraph 21 (regulations to avoid double charges to levy) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
	“(2A) In sub-paragraph (2)(b) “taxable supply” does not include a deemed supply under paragraph 24A, 24B, 24C or 42D.”
	(18) In Part 2 after paragraph 24 insert—
	“Deemed taxable supply: commodities to be used in producing electricity
	24A (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—
	(a) a quantity of a carbon price support rate commodity is brought onto, or arrives at, a site in Great Britain at which a generating station is situated,
	(b) that quantity of the commodity is intended to be used for producing electricity in the station,
	(c) the station is neither a fully exempt combined heat and power station nor a partly exempt combined heat and power station, and
	(d) the station is neither a small generating station nor a stand-by generator.
	(2) For the purposes of this Schedule the owner of the station is deemed to make a taxable supply to himself of that quantity of the commodity.
	(3) In sub-paragraph (1)(a) the reference to a commodity being brought onto, or arriving at, a site covers (in particular) gas in a gaseous state arriving at the site through a pipe.
	(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) it does not matter—
	(a) if the quantity of the commodity is not the subject of an actual supply made to the owner of the station, or
	(b) if the commodity’s availability for use in the station is subject to any condition.
	Deemed taxable supply: commodities to be used in combined heat and power station
	24B (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—
	(a) a quantity of a carbon price support rate commodity is brought onto, or arrives at, the CHPQA site of a fully exempt combined heat and power station or a partly exempt combined heat and power station in Great Britain,
	(b) that quantity of the commodity is intended to be used in the station for producing outputs of the station, and
	(c) the station is not a small generating station.
	(2) For the purposes of this Schedule the operator of the station is deemed to make a taxable supply to himself of that quantity of the commodity so far as that quantity is referable to the production of electricity.
	(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) the extent to which a quantity of a commodity is referable to the production of electricity is to be determined in accordance with regulations under paragraph 24D(1).
	(4) In sub-paragraph (1)(a) the reference to a commodity being brought onto, or arriving at, the CHPQA site of a station covers (in particular) gas in a gaseous state arriving at the CHPQA site through a pipe.
	(5) In sub-paragraph (1)(b) “outputs” has the meaning given by paragraph 148(9).
	(6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) it does not matter—
	(a) if the quantity of the commodity is not the subject of an actual supply made to the operator of the station, or
	(b) if the commodity’s availability for use in the station is subject to any condition.
	(7) In this paragraph “CHPQA site”, in relation to a fully exempt combined heat and power station or a partly exempt combined heat and power station, means the site of the scheme in relation to which the station’s CHPQA certificate was issued.
	24C (1) This paragraph applies if—
	(a) a determination (“the initial determination”) is made under regulations falling within paragraph 24B(3) that—
	(i) none of a quantity of a carbon price support rate commodity is, or
	(ii) a proportion of such a quantity is not,
	referable to the production of electricity,
	(b) as a result of the initial determination, the quantity or proportion of a quantity is determined not to be the subject of a deemed supply under paragraph 24B, and
	(c) it is later determined that, contrary to the initial determination, the quantity or proportion of a quantity—
	(i) was referable to the production of electricity, and
	(ii) accordingly, should have been determined to be the subject of a deemed supply under paragraph 24B.
	(2) For the purposes of this Schedule—
	(a) the operator of the station in question is deemed to make a taxable supply to himself of the quantity or proportion of a quantity, and
	(b) the amount payable by way of levy on the deemed supply is the amount which would have been payable in relation to the quantity or proportion of a quantity had it been determined to be the subject of a deemed supply as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(c)(ii).
	Power to make regulations giving effect to paragraphs 24A to 24C etc
	24D (1) The Commissioners may by regulations make provision for giving effect to paragraphs 24A to 24C and 42A to 42D.
	(2) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) may, in particular, include provision—
	(a) for determining whether a deemed supply under paragraph 24A or 24B is made;
	(b) for determining the quantity of any commodity which is the subject of such a deemed supply;
	(c) for determining whether paragraph 42C(2) applies in relation to a deemed supply under paragraph 24A or 24B and, if it does, the reduction in the relevant carbon price support rate.
	(3) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) may include—
	(a) provision in respect of calculations, measurements, data and procedures to be made or used;
	(b) provision that, so far as framed by reference to any document, is framed by reference to that document as from time to time in force.”
	(19) After paragraph 38 insert—
	“Deemed supplies under paragraph 24A, 24B, 24C or 42D
	38A (1) A deemed supply under paragraph 24A or 24B is treated as taking place when the quantity of the commodity is brought onto, or arrives at, the site at which the station is situated or the CHPQA site of the station (as the case may be).
	(2) A deemed supply under paragraph 24C or 42D is treated as taking place upon the later determination.”
	(20) Paragraph 39 (regulations as to time of supply) is amended as follows.
	(21) In sub-paragraph (1)(c) after “24” insert “, 24A, 24B, 24C, 42D”.
	(22) In sub-paragraph (3) after “supply)” insert “and 38A”.
	(23) In paragraph 42 (amount payable by way of levy) before sub-paragraph (2) insert—
	“(1B) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to a deemed supply under paragraph 24A or 24B.”
	(24) After paragraph 42 insert—
	“42A (1) This paragraph applies to a deemed supply under paragraph 24A or 24B.
	(2) The amount payable by way of levy on the deemed supply is the amount ascertained by applying the relevant carbon price support rate; and the levy payable on a fraction of a kilowatt hour, kilogram or gigajoule is that fraction of the levy payable on a kilowatt hour, kilogram or gigajoule.
	(3) The carbon price support rates are as follows.
	
		
			 Carbon price support rate commodity Carbon price support rate 
			 Any gas in a gaseous state that is of a kind supplied by a gas utility £0.00091 per kilowatt hour 
			 Any petroleum gas, or other gaseous hydrocarbon, in a liquid state £0.01460 per kilogram 
			 Any commodity falling within paragraph 3(1)(d) to (f) £0.44264 per gigajoule 
		
	
	(4) Sub-paragraph (2) needs to be read with paragraphs 42B and 42C.
	42B (1) This paragraph applies for the purposes of paragraph 42A(2) if the commodity deemed to be supplied is a quantity of a commodity falling within paragraph 3(1)(d) to (f).
	(2) The number of gigajoules in the quantity supplied is to be determined by reference to the total gross calorific value of that quantity.
	(3) Sub-paragraph (4) applies if there is included in that quantity any coal slurry taken from a slurry pit situated at the site of a coal mine (including a disused coal mine).
	(4) The gross calorific value of the coal slurry is to be left out of account in determining the total gross calorific value of that quantity.
	42C (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies for the purposes of paragraph 42A(2) if, in the calendar year in which the deemed supply is treated as taking place, carbon capture and storage technology is operated in relation to carbon dioxide generated by the station in question in producing electricity.
	(2) In relation to the deemed supply, only C% of the relevant carbon price support rate is to be applied (instead of the full rate).
	(3) “C%” is 100% minus the station’s carbon capture percentage for the calendar year.
	(4) The station’s “carbon capture percentage” for the calendar year is the percentage of the station’s generated carbon dioxide for that year which, through the operation of the carbon capture and storage technology, is—
	(a) captured, and
	(b) then disposed of by way of permanent storage.
	(5) The station’s “generated carbon dioxide” for the calendar year is the amount of carbon dioxide generated in the year by the station from the use of carbon price support rate commodities in producing electricity.
	(6) In this paragraph “carbon capture and storage technology” and “carbon dioxide” have the meaning given by section 7(3) and (4) of the Energy Act 2010.
	(7) Sub-paragraph (8) applies for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) in relation to any carbon dioxide if—
	(a) the carbon dioxide is captured but then leaks out and therefore is not disposed of by way of permanent storage, but
	(b) the leak does not occur—
	(i) on the land on which the station is situated,
	(ii) on any other land under the control of the station’s owner or a person connected with the station’s owner, or
	(iii) from any pipeline or other facility or installation which is operated by the station’s owner or a person connected with the station’s owner.
	Section 1122 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (“connected” persons) applies for the purposes of paragraph (b).
	(8) The carbon dioxide is to be treated as if it had been disposed of by way of permanent storage.
	(9) If the percentage mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) is not a whole number, it is to be rounded to the nearest whole number (taking 0.5% as nearest to the next whole number).
	42D (1) This paragraph applies if—
	(a) an amount is determined to be payable by way of levy on a deemed supply of a quantity of a commodity under paragraph 24A or 24B, but
	(b) it is later determined that that amount is too low.
	(2) For the purposes of this Schedule—
	(a) the person who made the deemed supply is deemed to make a further taxable supply to himself of the quantity of the commodity, and
	(b) the amount payable by way of levy on that further deemed supply is—
	(i) the total amount payable on the first deemed supply on the basis of the later determination mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b), less
	(ii) the amount previously determined to be payable on the first deemed supply.”
	(25) In paragraph 55 (notification of registrability) in sub-paragraph (1) after paragraph (a) insert—
	“(aa) expects to be deemed to make a taxable supply to himself under paragraph 24A or 24B, or”.
	(26) In paragraph 62 (tax credits) in sub-paragraph (1) after paragraph (b) insert—
	“(ba) a quantity of a carbon price support rate commodity is the subject of a deemed supply under paragraph 24A or 24B but afterwards the quantity—
	(i) is not used as mentioned in paragraph 24A(1)(b) or 24B(1)(b) (as the case may be), and
	(ii) is removed from the site at which the station is situated or from the CHPQA site of the station (as the case may be);
	(bb) after—
	(i) a determination is made under regulations falling within paragraph 24B(3) that a quantity, or a proportion of a quantity, of a carbon price support rate commodity is referable to the production of electricity, and
	(ii) it is accordingly determined that the quantity or proportion of a quantity is the subject of a deemed supply under paragraph 24B,
	it is determined that the quantity or proportion of a quantity was not referable to the production of electricity;
	(bc) after an amount is determined to be payable by way of levy on a deemed supply under paragraph 24A or 24B, it is determined that that amount is too high;”.
	(27) In paragraph 146 (regulations) in sub-paragraph (3)—
	(a) for “14(3),” substitute “5(2A), 14(2),”, and
	(b) after “16,” insert “17(1B),”.
	(28) In paragraph 147 (definitions)—
	(a) at the appropriate places, insert—
	““carbon price support rate commodity” means any taxable commodity other than electricity;”,
	““CHPQA certificate” has the same meaning as in the Climate Change Levy (Combined Heat and Power Stations) Exemption Certificate Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/486);”,
	““exempt unlicensed electricity supplier” has the meaning given by paragraph 152A;”,
	““Great Britain” includes the territorial waters of the United Kingdom so far as adjacent to Great Britain;”,
	““small generating station” has the meaning given by paragraph 152B;”, and
	““stand-by generator” means a generating station which—
	(a) is used to provide an emergency electricity supply to a building in the event of a failure of the building’s usual electricity supply, and
	(b) is not used for any other purpose;”, and
	(b) in the definition of “prescribed”—
	(i) for “14(3),” substitute “5(2A), 14(2),”, and
	(ii) after “16(3)” insert “, 17(1B)”.
	(29) After paragraph 152 insert—
	“Meaning of “exempt unlicensed electricity supplier”
	152A (1) In this Schedule “exempt unlicensed electricity supplier” means a person—
	(a) to whom an exemption from section 4(1)(c) of the Electricity Act 1989 (persons supplying electricity to premises) has been granted by an order under section 5 of that Act, or
	(b) to whom an exemption from Article 8(1)(c) of the Electricity Supply (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 has been granted by an order under Article 9 of that Order,
	except where the person is acting otherwise than for purposes connected with the carrying on of activities authorised by the exemption.
	(2) Sub-paragraph (1) applies subject to—
	(a) any direction under paragraph 151(1), and
	(b) any regulations under paragraph 151(2).
	Meaning of “small generating station”
	152B (1) In this Schedule “small generating station” means a generating station the capacity of which for producing electricity is no more than 2 megawatts.
	(2) Sub-paragraph (3) applies if a relevant station (“station X”) is one of a number of relevant stations which—
	(a) are situated in the United Kingdom, and
	(b) are owned by P or persons connected with P.
	(3) In applying sub-paragraph (1) in relation to station X, the reference to the capacity of a generating station is to be read as a reference to the capacity of station X and all the other relevant stations mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) taken together.
	(4) In sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) “relevant station” means a generating station which is neither an exempt CHP station nor a stand-by generator.
	(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b)—
	(a) “P” is the person who owns station X, and
	(b) section 1122 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (“connected” persons) applies.
	(6) Sub-paragraph (7) applies if the scheme in relation to which the CHPQA certificate of an exempt CHP station (“station Y”) is issued covers other exempt CHP stations as well.
	(7) In applying sub-paragraph (1) in relation to station Y, the reference to the capacity of a generating station is to be read as a reference to the capacity of station Y and all the other exempt CHP stations mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) taken together.
	(8) In this paragraph “exempt CHP station” means a fully exempt combined heat and power station or a partly exempt combined heat and power station.”
	(30) Regulation 5 of the Climate Change Levy (Electricity and Gas) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/1136) is amended as follows.
	(31) In paragraph (1) for “paragraph 14(2) of the Act (exemption: certain supplies to electricity producers)” substitute “paragraphs 5(2A), 14(2) and 17(1B) of the Act (which contain references to exempt unlicensed electricity suppliers)”.
	(32) In paragraph (2)(a) for “14(4)” substitute “152A(1)”.
	(33) The amendments made by paragraphs (30) to (32) are to be treated as having been made by the Treasury under the powers to make regulations conferred by paragraphs 5(2A), 14(2) and 17(1B) of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 2000.
	(34) The amendments made by paragraphs (2) to (32) come into force on 26 March 2013.
	(35) The amendments made by paragraphs (8) and (9) have effect for the purpose of determining if a supply of gas or electricity is exempt from levy where the gas or electricity is actually supplied on or after 1 April 2013.
	“Gas” means gas in a gaseous state that is of a kind supplied by a gas utility.
	(36) Those amendments are to have effect for the purpose of determining if any other supply is exempt from levy where the supply is treated as taking place on or after 1 April 2013.
	(37) The amendments made by paragraphs (13) to (16) have effect for the purpose of determining if a supply of electricity is exempt from levy where the electricity is caused to be consumed on or after 1 April 2013.
	(38) The amendment made by paragraph (18) has effect in relation to carbon price support rate commodities which are brought onto, or arrive at, sites on or after 1 April 2013.
	And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

64. BANK LEVY (RATES)

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about bank levy rates.

65. TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR THE BANK LEVY AND FOREIGN BANK LEVIES

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made preventing deductions in respect of the bank levy and foreign bank levies when calculating liability to income tax or corporation tax.

66. GENERAL ANTI-ABUSE RULE

Resolved,
	That provision may be made for the purposes of counteracting tax advantages arising from tax arrangements that are abusive.

67. TRUSTS WITH VULNERABLE BENEFICIARY

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about trusts which have a vulnerable beneficiary.

68. UNAUTHORISED UNIT TRUSTS

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about the trustees or unit holders of unit trust schemes which are not authorised unit trusts.

69. RESIDENCE AND ORDINARY RESIDENCE

Resolved,
	That provision may be made—
	(a) establishing a statutory residence test to determine whether individuals are UK resident for the purposes of income tax, capital gains tax and (where relevant) inheritance tax and corporation tax,
	(b) imposing charges to income tax and capital gains tax on those who are temporarily non-resident, and
	(c) removing or replacing rules relating to ordinary residence.

70. OVERPAYMENT RELIEF

Resolved,
	That provision may be made in connection with claims in respect of overpaid tax and excessive assessments.

71. RELIEF FROM TAX (INCIDENTAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL CHARGES)

Resolved,
	That it is expedient to authorise any incidental or consequential charges to any duty or tax (including charges having retrospective effect) that may arise from provisions designed in general to afford relief from taxation.

PROCEDURE (FUTURE TAXATION)

Resolved,
	That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain provision for the financial year 2015 for the rate of corporation tax on profits of companies, other than ring fence profits (within the meaning of section 276 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010), to be 20%.

PROCEDURE (FUTURE TAXATION)

Resolved,
	That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain the following provisions taking effect in a future year—
	(a) provision for corporation tax to be charged for the financial year 2014,
	(b) provision about taxable benefits in respect of cars,
	(c) provision about the standard lifetime allowance under Part 4 of the Finance Act 2004,
	(d) provision about the annual allowance under that Part,
	(e) provision about the standard rate of landfill tax,
	(f) provision about the rates of climate change levy, and
	(g) provision for and in connection with penalties for late filing, late payment and errors.

PROCEDURE (R&D EXPENDITURE CREDITS)

Resolved,
	That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain provision for and in connection with the payment of credits to companies in respect of expenditure on research and development.

PROCEDURE (TELEVISION TAX CREDITS)

Resolved,
	That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain
	provision for tax credits to be paid to television production companies in respect of expenditure on television production activities.

PROCEDURE (VIDEO GAME TAX CREDITS)

Resolved,
	That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain provision for tax credits to be paid to video game development companies in respect of expenditure on video game development activities.

PROCEDURE (DECOMMISSIONING RELIEF AGREEMENTS)

Resolved,
	That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain provision authorising the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums payable by the Treasury or a Minister of the Crown to a company in connection with the amount of tax relief obtained in respect of decommissioning expenditure incurred by it.

PROCEDURE (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS TO IMPROVE TAX COMPLIANCE)

Resolved,
	That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may make provision for the purposes of enabling effect to be given to international agreements relating to international tax compliance which are entered into by the Government of the United Kingdom.

PROCEDURE (PENALTY INSTEAD OF FORFEITURE OF LARGER SHIPS)

Resolved,
	That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain provision about the imposition of penalties instead of forfeiture of larger ships for or in connection with offences under any enactment relating to customs or excise.

FINANCE (MONEY)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
	Resolved,
	That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(a) sums incurred by the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs in respect of the payment of credits to companies in respect of expenditure on research and development,
	(b) sums payable by the Treasury or a Minister of the Crown to a company in connection with the amount of tax relief obtained in respect of decommissioning expenditure incurred by it, and
	(c) sums payable by the Secretary of State by virtue of any provisions of the Act relating to vehicle excise and registration.
	Ordered,
	That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions;
	That the Chairman of Ways and Means, The Prime Minister, The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Vince Cable, Secretary Iain
	Duncan Smith, Secretary Eric Pickles, Danny Alexander, Greg Clark, Mr David Gauke and Sajid Javid bring in the Bill.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading
	Mr David Gauke accordingly presented a Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 154).

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Consumer Protection

That the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 Domestic Infringements) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 19 December 2012, be approved.—(Mr Evennett.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft Scotland Act 2012 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 10 January, be approved.—(Mr Evennett.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

International Immunities and Privileges

That the draft Global Growth Institute (Legal Capacities) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 29 January, be approved. —(Mr Evennett.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Community Infrastructure Levy

That the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 14 February, be approved.—(Mr Evennett.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Town and Country Planning

That the draft Neighbourhood Planning (Referendums) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 25 February, be approved.—(Mr Evennett.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Church of England (General Synod) (Measures)

That the Clergy Discipline (Amendment) Measure (HC 1021), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, which was laid before this House on 28 February, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.—(Sir Tony Baldry.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
	That the Diocese in Europe Measure (HC 1020), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, which was laid before this House on 28 February, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.—(Sir Tony Baldry.)
	Question agreed to.

Business of the House

Ordered,
	That, in respect of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—(Mr Evennett.)

Parliamentary Privilege (Joint Committee)

Resolved,
	That, notwithstanding the Resolution of this House of 3 December 2012, it be an instruction to the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege that it should report by 28 June 2013. —(Mr Lansley.)

Administration

Ordered,
	That Graham Evans be discharged from the Administration Committee and Nicholas Soames be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

PETITIONS

Closure of Burnage Library (Manchester)

John Leech: I rise to support and submit a petition on behalf of more than 2,500 Manchester residents opposed to the Labour council’s plans to close Burnage library in my constituency.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of a resident of the UK,
	Declares that Manchester City Council has proposed to close Burnage Library; further that local residents are opposed to this decision and that the council should reverse its plans.
	The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges Manchester City Council to reverse its plans to close Burnage Library.
	And the Petitioner remains, etc.
	[P001168]

VAT on Toasted Sandwiches

John Leech: I rise a second time to support and submit the “Toast the Tax” petition, on behalf of the tens of thousands of employees and customers of Subway—I suppose I ought to declare an interest, as someone who occasionally purchases stuff from Subway. The petitioners
	are not asking the Government to revive plans for a pasty tax; they are simply asking for sandwich shop owners to be treated fairly.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of employees and customers of Subway,
	Declares that VAT is being charged on toasted subs and sandwiches, further that as a result, the sandwich shop industry, which employs tens of thousands of hard-working people and supports thousands of small businesses, is now being placed under threat and that sandwich shop owners should be treated fairly.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to maintain its recent U-turn on pasties and additionally to remove or reduce the tax across the board, in line with our European neighbours.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001167]

Human Rights in India

Chris Williamson: I was recently presented with a petition signed by some 2,000 residents of Derby—part of a wider petition numbering some 120,000 around the country—who are concerned about the lifting of the moratorium on the death penalty in India:
	The Petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that the UK Government, together with the UN and EU, should encourage the Indian Union to take immediate action to stop human rights abuses facing minorities in India and that India should sign and ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the UN Charter against torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment which encompasses the death penalty and thus India should abolish the death penalty as it is a cruel, inhumane or degrading form of punishment; further declares that the UK Government should campaign to stop Balwant Singh Rajoana’s death sentence and have him released from jail as he has served 17 years in custody and that the Indian Union should release all prisoners facing the same situation and those who have been imprisoned without trial.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to appeal to India for the above actions to be taken, and request that the Government bring these issues to light in the European Union and United Nations.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001169]

Changes to Welfare in Hartlepool

Iain Wright: I rise to present a petition from my constituency, initiated by the Manor Residents Association and signed by more than 1,000 people from Hartlepool who are concerned about the Government’s welfare reform policy in general and the introduction of the bedroom tax in particular.
	The petition reads:
	The Petition of residents of Hartlepool,
	Declares that the Petitioners support the Manor Residents Association in their protest against Government legislation in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 which will result in a further stealth tax on residents and families who are already reeling from the effect of Government austerity measures; further that the Petitioners believe that the “bedroom tax”, introduced as part of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, will have a major impact on the health and well being of those who are most vulnerable and least well off in our
	communities; further that this legislation ignores the needs of social housing tenants by introducing a tax designed to reduce Central Government expenditure; further that the Petitioners believe that the assertion that the legislation will encourage greater mobility within the rented sector and make better use of available housing stock flies in the face of common sense as there are already significant waiting lists for social housing in our towns and cities and that the notion that this legislation will enable families to come off benefits by downsizing is nonsensical when the reality is that families will be no better off than they are currently; further that, for many individuals on benefits, this will result in significant hardship, that stark choices such as feeding a family or keeping a roof over their heads will need to be made and that there will be an increase of homelessness amongst the most vulnerable in society.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to remove the “bedroom tax” on families.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001170]

ENERGY INTENSIVE INDUSTRIES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Evennett.)

Andy Sawford: I had not anticipated this number of Members attending the debate at this late hour. I am delighted to see them, as it shows the level of interest in this subject. Many other Members have raised the same issues, and there were some welcome announcements in the Budget last week, but I hope to press for more detail and more information on how this issue will impact on my particular constituency. If I am not able to take all the interventions that Members wish to make, I am sure they will understand.
	Corby is a town built on steel: the steelworks and the tubeworks. In 1980 thousands of men were put on the dole, including my own dad, when Corby stopped making steel, but the tubeworks continued, and my granddad worked in the stores there. Today it is still incredibly important to our local economy. Six hundred and fifty people work there. These are good jobs that pay well, and in which people learn great skills. This year, Tata took on 13 apprentices at Corby. It dispatched 250 kilotons of tubes, and exported 40% of the product around the world. It contributes more widely to our local economy. I am told that there is a multiplier effect.

Sarah Champion: As my hon. Friend knows, Tata Steel in Rotherham employs more than 2,000 people, and the effect that they have on the economy is considerable. That is why I think that the Government should introduce practical measures to support the industry.

Andy Sawford: My hon. Friend is right, and I know that she will continue to champion the steel industry in Rotherham. Steel is, of course, incredibly important to many communities around the country. I am particularly proud of Corby’s steel tubes, which can be found in Wembley stadium, in the Olympic park and in the millennium wheel. The red tubes can be found in buildings across the country.
	I am pleased that, since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have been able to be active in the all-party parliamentary group for the steel and metal-related industry, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and supported by many other Members. I have also been involved with the trade unions, particularly Community but also Unite. Together, we are concerned about the impact of rising energy prices, both because of rising wholesale prices generally and because of European Union and United Kingdom Government policies, especially those that rightly seek to reduce carbon output but, in my view, have wrongly had an impact on a set of vital industries which we need as a nation, and which are part of our sustainable future.
	I am not talking just about steel. We have world-class energy-intensive companies that make a huge contribution to our employment, tax revenues and exports. The Environmental Audit Committee estimates that energy-intensive industries account for 4% of gross value added, and employ 125,000 people in the United Kingdom. Concern is shared by a number of industries. The hon.
	Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) has expressed concern to me about the cement industry, and companies such as INEOS Chlor which are part of the Energy Intensive Users Group have given me helpful briefings.
	Last week the ceramics industry was very much in the public eye when the Chancellor made announcements about it in his Budget statement. In my constituency, Morgan Technical Ceramics employs 200 people. It makes an incredible variety of products which are exported to more than 100 countries, but in the process it uses large amounts of gas, as do all ceramics manufacturers.
	Three areas of climate policy are having a particular impact on industrial energy prices: tax, carbon prices and renewable subsidies. Of course, those apply in other European countries, but the United Kingdom Government have not listened to the calls from energy-intensive industries in the UK for help of the kind that the German and French Governments give their industries. That has two effects. First, it makes it very difficult for our companies to compete now, and secondly, when it comes to investment decisions and securing the long-term future of these industries, the global companies of which they are part are increasingly opting to move elsewhere. Morgan Ceramics, for example, tells me that it recently moved 300 jobs from the UK to France.
	We have an urgent problem. Climate policies have added about 21% to current electricity prices, and the Energy Intensive Users Group estimates that the figure will rise to 58% by 2020. New extra climate-related taxes are likely to exceed current profits for many of our energy-intensive companies within the next few years, which means that their viability is in question in the medium term. Let me give two figures that illustrate the problem. The wholesale price of electricity in Germany in 2014 is forecast to be €40 per MWh, while the price in the UK is forecast to be €60 per MWh—and that is before taxes have been taken into account. That should be contrasted with the help that is being offered by Governments. The UK Government have provided a £250 million mitigation package to protect industry from the cost of the carbon prices floor and the EU emissions trading scheme. Of course, that mitigation is welcome, but the German Government are offering €5 billion in energy tax rebates to their energy-intensive industries, so we can immediately see that the concerns about a level playing field are very real.

Nicholas Dakin: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. In addition to that disadvantage, is there not also a lack of clarity about how much money will be available to support energy-intensive industries, and when? That certainty is needed to secure jobs into the future, as has been mentioned.

Andy Sawford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Like him, I am concerned about the lack of clarity, and particularly the time it has taken the Government to sort out the compensation package.

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way, and it is fantastic that he has been able to secure this debate. Was he, like me, concerned to hear the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills admit to the Welsh Affairs Committee in January that the package was very slow in coming? He was
	almost admitting to a failure of his Department. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Business Secretary needs to do a lot more to push that along?

Andy Sawford: I was conflicted in preparing for this debate because, as so often with these things, the Ministers who are called to respond to the pressure we put on the Government are the very people who are listening and seeking to help. The Business Secretary has indeed acknowledged that progress has been slow. I was told in a ministerial reply on 25 February that the Government are analysing the responses to their consultation on the mitigation package, and are exploring the issue further. I hope the Minister will understand when I say that, given the vital importance of these industries, which employ 125,000 people, this uncertainty is not good enough and we need to hear the detail soon. I hope he can say when the Government will tell us how the mitigation package will work and explain the details.
	The overall level of compensation is not adequate—neither the scale of financial compensation nor the duration of the scheme, which covers only the current spending review period. The Chancellor announced in last week’s Budget that there will be further support in the next spending round, which is welcome. However, on the long-term investment decisions, the scale and duration of support during the next spending round has not been made clear. Can the Minister give us further details today?
	The Budget proposes a one-year extension to the current mitigation package, taking us through to 2015-16. Does that mean stretching the existing £250 million further, involving a thinner spread of money across the period, or will there be additional money? That was not made clear in the Red Book.
	The announcement in the Budget of a 100% exemption from the climate change levy is good, and I am sure the Minister will remind us of that, but we must remember that it was already at 90%. The Chancellor made much of the specific exemption for the ceramics industry, which did not previously qualify for mitigation. That has been hugely welcomed and we should welcome it tonight. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) for his campaign, in which I know other Members are involved. I hope the Minister will not mind me describing the situation in these terms, but all those measures put together look like a sticking plaster. He must acknowledge that our energy-intensive industries have a long-term problem, certainly a long-term challenge.
	To secure the future of France’s energy-intensive industries, the French Government brokered the Exeltium deal, through which energy-intensives have signed long-term power supply deals for low-carbon energy. That is the kind of measure we need in the UK.
	Ofgem has already raised concerns about a 2015 electricity supply crunch. We know there is a lack of gas reserves stored in this country, and gas prices are highly volatile. Last Friday, the Bacton interconnector failed for several hours. Prices opened at £1.25 per therm and rose to £1.50 during the day, which shows the huge volatility within in the industry. The ceramics industry is concerned that it could be the first in line if there are gas shortages. If production has to be turned off with two hours’ notice, which is a risk, given the uncertainty of supply, that could seriously damage the kilns. In the
	long-term we need more storage and the requirement to use it through a public service obligation, as is common in other European countries, to ensure energy security and reduce price volatility.
	I have spoken about the importance of our energy-intensive industries, and how vital they are to my constituency and many others around the country, so I urge the Minister to maintain an ongoing dialogue between the Government, industry and the trade unions, which have played a helpful role. Will he commit to visit my constituency to meet Tata, with me and work force representatives, and to visit Morgan Technical Ceramics so that we can discuss the issues for that industry in more detail?

Nia Griffith: Does my hon. Friend recognise that many energy-intensive industries are keen to make significant investment, which will result in energy efficiency, but are hampered because the enhanced capital allowance system is not broad enough to encompass much of that investment and a lot of it is not eligible? Will he therefore join me in calling on the Government to re-examine this area to see whether they could expand the scope of enhanced capital allowances?

Andy Sawford: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I have received a great deal of helpful briefing from industries on how they hope to secure their industry for the long term, and I hope we will hear from the Minister about the enhanced capital allowances. If he would commit to visit my constituency, that would be incredibly welcome. I ask him to provide much more detail on the various measures that have been announced and how we might go further, so that when companies look at their operations in this country, as Tata regularly does, they can be confident that they will be able to operate in a viable way in the future because of the policies that we have advocated and that the Minister has acknowledged.

Gregory Barker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) on securing this important debate. Without, in any way, wishing to sound patronising, may I say that that was a very good speech, and for someone who has been in the House for only a few months, It certainly augurs well for his career.
	Let me say at the outset that I would be delighted to visit Corby. I think there had been an invitation from his distinguished predecessor but it fell with the by-election. I would be happy to visit Corby, not least as the Minister with responsibility in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, but also, wearing my other hat in government, as the Minister for business engagement with India. I am a huge admirer of the extraordinary achievements of the Tata group. I regularly meet its people, from both the steel part and the other parts of the company, but I have not yet had the opportunity to visit the Corby steel plant, so I would be happy to explore how I can find a date to do so.
	I welcome this debate, not least because our energy-intensive industries make an important contribution to the UK economy and it is vital to keep them competitive.
	These industries are also vital to regional economies, particularly because, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, not only do they support jobs—good, well-paying, satisfying jobs that people can build careers on—but their products are important in the transition to a low-carbon economy. Some people might think it strange that, as the Minister with responsibility for tackling climate change, I have made a point of making the case for recognising the contribution that energy-intensive industries make to our economy and urging that they get special treatment, but I see no contradiction in that at all. I have made it clear since coming into this job in 2010 that we take the challenge of decarbonising the economy very seriously and are determined to deliver our commitments, in line with the Climate Change Act 2008, which was passed under the previous Government. However, we are equally clear that decarbonisation must not mean de-industrialisation. On the contrary, if we are going to build the low-carbon infrastructure—the renewable energy assets—that we need in the UK, we will need to bring forth a new age of engineering. There are huge opportunities, in not only steel, but a range of sectors that are necessarily energy-intensive. There are huge opportunities to become more energy-efficient, to drive innovation and to become more competitive, but these industries cannot subvert the laws of physics. There is only so much that many of them can do.
	I was told when I first came into the job that those industries were not suffering in quite the way they suggested and that the playing field with Europe was not so uneven, but I was continually lobbied by a number of industries, not least the ceramics industry, which does a very good job, and decided that I would only get to the bottom of it if I went to Germany myself. It is no coincidence that Germany, which over the past decade has seen a massive increase in its share of the global market for manufactured goods, particularly those from advanced manufacturing, saw at the same time a massive deployment—probably the largest single deployment in Europe—of renewable energy. The two have gone neatly hand in hand, and Germany has managed much more effectively than we have to ensure a better balance of policy, supporting the deployment of renewables with the necessary subsidy to drive those nascent industries to cost competitiveness with their fossil fuel equivalents while being sufficiently differentiating in its approach to protect energy-intensive industries.
	There is a fundamental difference, however. In Germany, as I found out, the burden of policy falls overwhelmingly on the consumer, not on industry. The balance is completely different from that in the UK. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that €5 billion supports the energy-intensive industries in Germany, but replicating that model in full here would entail a considerable rise in consumer bills and I am sure that he would not advocate that.
	We are constrained, particularly in light of the deficit we inherited and the absolute imperative of bringing down the national debt, but we are determined to be as flexible as possible. That is why when I came back from Germany—I went there with a number of major energy-intensive companies, visited the plants and spoke to German policy makers—I lobbied hard within Government to make the case for greater differentiation for the energy-intensives. That, along with the efforts of other colleagues, resulted in the £250 million package.
	This is a coalition Government who understand the imperative of supporting appropriately our energy-intensive industries, but I do not pretend that £250 million is the last word or is even enough in the longer term. The fact is that if we are to support our energy-intensive industries and watch those manufacturers grow, they will require more support. I have made it very clear that the £250 million is the first step in a longer term programme of support recognising the need for greater fiscal differentiation, but it must be aligned with our deficit reduction programme.
	I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the details from the Dispatch Box this evening, but I can reassure him that we will shortly announce the outcome of the BIS-led consultation on the £250 million package. That will include the technical details, including the emissions factors that he was seeking. We must also still obtain state-aid clearance from the EU for the carbon floor price consultation. In addition to that and the EU emissions trading scheme, we are seeking permission from the EU to begin to put the building blocks in place for a more German-style approach to the architecture. Following the consultation with stakeholders, which closed in December, we have been analysing responses to ensure that compensation is targeted at those industries that are most at risk of carbon leakage, subject to final state-aid approval. As I have said, we will publish those results shortly. As set out in the Energy Bill, we will introduce an exemption for energy-intensive industries from the costs of contracts for difference under electricity market reform, again subject to consultation and state-aid clearance.
	In the Budget the Chancellor was able to go further and to take another step towards building a more differentiated package, with the announcement of an exemption for mineralogical and metallurgical processes from the climate change levy—the ceramics sector. That is allowed for under the energy taxation directive.

Jeremy Lefroy: In Staffordshire, the news in last week’s Budget was received with great joy. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and many others have been fighting for the measure, but it was great news and well received.

Gregory Barker: I am glad to hear it. My hon. Friend’s representations played a part in the decision, but he is absolutely right; a number of hon. Members made the case. I have been to Stoke to see factories there and the challenges they face.
	The measure will mitigate any competitive disadvantage that the UK mineralogical and metallurgical sectors face. It will help them to move to a more level playing field with their EU competitors. It also supports the Government’s growth agenda and our commitment to ensuring that manufacturing remains competitive during the shift to a low-carbon economy.
	Industrial energy efficiency has a strong role to play. We cannot defy the laws of physics, but industrial energy efficiency represents a huge opportunity for UK plc to improve its international competitiveness. It is good for growth and competitiveness, and it drives our energy security. It is also key to managing costs and building margin growth. The Government are supporting industry to implement energy-efficiency measures that will help to reduce the impact of rising energy prices on industry.
	We recently published our energy-efficiency strategy, which sets out our commitment to seizing the energy-efficiency opportunity, accelerating the deployment of 21st-century energy-saving measures. We will do that by connecting energy-efficiency knowledge and technologies to finance, seeking strong returns; supporting energy-efficiency innovation; harnessing the power of improved energy-use information, driving its availability and disclosure; and encouraging collective action on this new and better information.
	We recognise the need to minimise regulatory impacts on industry. We have taken steps to simplify our key schemes on energy efficiency and carbon reduction. We have taken measures to simplify climate change agreements, the carbon reduction commitment and the EU emissions trading scheme to remove overlaps and reduce administrative burdens. Actions we have taken include consulting on and simplifying climate change agreements and introducing an opt-out for the EU emissions trading scheme for small emitters and hospitals. We have consulted on a process for the simplification of the CRC and on new regulations to implement the EU emissions trading scheme in the UK from this year.

Tom Blenkinsop: The Minister is listing the many causes the Government are taking up on behalf of energy-intensive industries, but is there not a distinct lack of industrial activism? We are looking at significant structural contracts in Scotland and in Merseyside, but the British steel industry is losing out. In my area, we recently saw the loss of a potential carbon capture and storage project for Wilton, which would have added at least 30 years to existing infrastructure in the chemical industry there.

Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman is right to a certain extent. There are big challenges and we cannot turn around a supertanker in a short time. We have seen a consistent decline in manufacturing capacity in the past decade, and before then, but we are beginning to see a rebalancing of our economy. In the renewables sector, a great deal more of the equipment required, for example, for the massive expansion of offshore wind, has begun to be fabricated and manufactured in the UK, particularly along the east coast.

Tom Blenkinsop: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. On the issue of offshore wind, recently at Redcar contracts were promised with Tata Steel to provide the base structures and with TAG Energy Solutions in Billingham to provide the monopiles, but both lost out to foreign competitors. What are the Government doing proactively with industry to roll up their sleeves and get involved so that industry can win those contracts?

Gregory Barker: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that he is wrong about TAG; it has won a significant order, which was secured after a personal intervention by the Minister at the Dispatch Box. I spoke directly to the board in Germany, and intervened actively on industrial policy. I am therefore glad that he raised that issue, as TAG has a big manufacturing future ahead of it.
	We accept that large energy-intensive industries in Europe benefit from tax rebates and other exemptions, which means that their prices are significantly lower than the average for their country. However, it is important
	to remember that many of the exemptions applied to those industries have distributional impacts. If industry does not pay them, other electricity consumers need to pay more. As the Minister responsible for fuel poverty, I have to bear in mind those distributional impacts and fairness for those who pick up the bill.
	May I say something briefly about gas security, which is topical, particularly given what has appeared in the newspapers over the weekend and the cold snap that we are suffering? We are aware of industry concerns about current high gas prices and low storage stocks, but while high prices in a spike are uncomfortable, they are a sign that our market is working and that we are attracting the gas that we need through a diverse range of infrastructure. Price volatility is not something that we can completely remove, and nor should we seek to do so, from our market. It is the key mechanism that enables our market to balance efficiently at the lowest cost to consumers, and it incentivises investment in new infrastructure such as storage.
	Our market is resilient to global events, and has spare import capacity built in. However, we take gas security and the risk of harmful gas spikes seriously, and we are
	determined to do more. We are working with Ofgem to review our market arrangements, to ensure that they continue to provide secure supplies to consumers at a fair price. At the same time, we are diversifying our energy mix to reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels, and have put in place robust policies to cut energy demand.
	In conclusion, I very much welcome this debate on energy-intensive industries. I commend the hon. Member for Corby on making a compelling case. He is right to hold the Government to account on this issue, but I can assure him that we take it absolutely seriously. We are determined to do more within the context of the difficult economic and fiscal situation that we inherited, but we recognise the benefits of acting now to ensure that we maintain these industries at the same time that we build a secure low-carbon future. Those policies are designed to deliver efficient, low-carbon, secure and affordable energy supplies.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.